Contact
Subscribe
|
Tweet
| (10) |
Guv candidates talk about public financing of elections
Susana Martinez (left, courtesy photo) and Diane Denish (photo by Heath Haussamen)
Republican gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez opposes public financing of elections, while Democratic opponent Diane Denish wants to give campaign contribution limits a try before she considers expanding public financing.
The current public financing system in New Mexico is voluntary and applies only to races for seats on the Public Regulation Commission, Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.
Instead of public financing, Martinez wants to increase transparency and accountability by “moving toward real-time reporting” and the conducting of random audits of campaign reports to ensure candidates are following the law.
Ending the existing public financing system is not something the governor can do on her own. The Legislature would have to approve such a proposal.
In addition to wanting to try out campaign contribution limits – which take effect after the current election cycle – Denish also wants changes to the existing public financing system. She said she wants “stricter audit requirements” and “a mechanism requiring candidates who are seeking public financing in these select offices to demonstrate a high level of grassroots support.”
The candidates’ positions on public financing came in response to questions I asked about the subject. The questions:
- Do you support expanding the state’s public financing system for elections, keeping the system in place only for races in which it already applies (Public Regulation Commission and some judicial races), or scaling back or eliminating the public financing system completely, and why?
- If you would seek to expand it, to what races should it be applied?
- Are there any other changes to the public financing system you would seek to enact?
The responses:
Susana Martinez
“I do not support spending more tax dollars to fund political campaigns. Public financing of campaigns forces those who may not necessarily agree with the political viewpoint of a candidate to finance their campaigns. With all the troubling budget problems we are facing, we shouldn’t spend taxpayer dollars on anything other than critical priorities like creating jobs and getting our state back on track.
“I support ensuring there is more transparency concerning the reporting of political contributions and moving toward real-time reporting. Furthermore, we should also be conducting random audits of campaign reports that are filed to ensure that contributions are being spent within the requirements of the law.”
Diane Denish
“I support strict contribution limits and full transparency, which is why I was an outspoken supporter for the state’s new campaign finance law and why I voluntarily reported my campaign contributions more than the law requires. Before we ask taxpayers to cover the costs of all state elections, I think we need to give the new law – which doesn’t even go into effect until after this election – a chance to succeed.
“One thing is clear: multi-millionaires from Texas – or any other state – shouldn’t be allowed to come in and buy an election in New Mexico. And that’s why I feel the new law that limits contribution amounts is a smart step forward for New Mexico.”
Since Denish’s initial statement didn’t answer the question about whether the existing public financing system should be kept in place, I asked for clarification. Her response:
“I would like to see the current system changed to have stricter audit requirements. I would also push for a mechanism requiring candidates who are seeking public financing in these select offices to demonstrate a high level of grassroots support.”
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
10 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Susana Martinez marches in step with her Republican cohorts. Interestingly 40 Republican senators blocked the passage of disclosure legislation that would have counteracted the growing influence of corporations and their campaign money. It would force disclosure of election-related disbursements by corporations, labor unions and nonprofit groups. So obviously Ms. Martinez will not support any more transparency regarding campaign money.
gofdisks,
I wonder that your disillusion seems to apply only to Republicans – can you really be so naive as to believe that Democrats are not every bit as corruptible as Republicans? For every example of a corrupt or in competent Republican, there is an example of a corrupt Democrat to match it.
The attitude that it is all hopeless is a self fulfilling prophecy. If we can get a real look at how our power and resources are being spent, and be able to link to it, there is a chance that we can get enough people wound up to make a difference. If we can’t, then it really is hopeless and it doesn’t make any difference if the payoff’s come before the election or after.
Ched. I contend that transparency has little effect as the politicians will just keep crossing the line becoming more and more shameless and self-justifying. Apathy and cynicism set in the voting population. A good example is Susana Martinez taking the out-sized contribution from a notorious corrupt propagandizing entity. She doesn’t care, she justifies it and her supporters see nothing wrong with it. Transparency does not curb the shameless. I may be appalled, some extremists on the right think that money should rule regardless and most just don’t give a damn.
Cap campaign spending.
If government were as transparent as the law will allow, it could be made impossibly difficult to be corrupt or incompetent without being exposed.
It would be pointless to “buy” a politician if there were no opportunity for the politician “act bought” secretly.
Something needs to be done to level the playing field, or we end up with government for the people, but of the rich and powerful and by the rich and powerful.
The ONLY way to fix our politicians beholden to big contributors is to cap campaign SPENDING. Campaign finance reform has never worked and never will. If candidates were to have equal spending caps, it would be a contest of record and vision. Our politicians could concentrate on governing instead of constantly whoring.
llaj – It seemed to work well for Richardson… Why were there so many allegations of pay-to-play?
I believe in public financing….we have got to change the way elections are done in this country. As it is now, the richest people are the most likely to win elections because they can afford to buy more airtime, publicity, and media attention. For example, in California, both Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are putting millions of dollars of their own money into their campaigns…what normal middle-class candidate can compete with that?
And here in New Mexico, Martinez received $450,000 from a Texas land developer who started the whole “Swift Boat Liar” smears against John Kerry. That really, really worries me….what does he expect for that money? And will Martinez give him whatever he wants because he gave her such a large amount of money? That’s not the way our elections should work.
People talk about Public financing as being all great because it takes the “money out of politics” but it only seems to favor candidates who have run for office before and have built their name ID up. With public money, these people don’t have to work as hard as challengers. Here in Cruces, people like former county commissioners who have run before (Kent Evans, Bill McCamey) keep going to the public trough asking we the taxpayers to fund their political ambition. New candidates that want to challenge people like them don’t start off on the “level playing field” that proponents of this racket always talk about.
I’m with Susanna. Banish the system!
The only way I would want any of my money used for such frivilous purposes is that the amount would be strictly limited and very small, say a max of $10,000 for state-wide offices. But it would be a great idea to limit any spending on campaign garbage to the same amount even if private. Make them get out and work for recognition, door to door, meeting by meeting.
Random audits will not be a useful tool at this time. Who do you pick to audit? The state should audit all the campaign reports of political candidates. However, this would be too costly because of New Mexico’s budget crisis. What we need is more timely disclosure.
The real issue in this matter is not “to ensure that contributions are being spent within the requirements of the law.” The important issue is that it is difficult to tell the difference between legal contributions to political candidates and contributions made with an express “quid pro quo.” That is why we need more timely disclosure for public inspection. It is critical we work at severing the connection between big money (i.e. the oil and gas industry, a Texas billionaire developer, state contractors etc.) and politics.
Instead in this campaign a little cosmetic surgery is touted as major reform. Unfortunately campaign finance reform is simply not going to happen!