Metes & Bounds: Buying your share of government

Where the government is ³of the people, by the people and for
the people,² all of the people should be getting a fair and equal
break, right?
Wrong!  
It takes big bucks to run for public office, and win; and
political candidates find that the easiest way to guarantee a full
campaign chest is to support the policies and legislation that
benefits campaign contributors. So, while the National debt and the
annual deficit spiral out of control, jobs and capital equipment
are moving overseas, fraud and war profiteering running rampant,
the rich get richer and the poor get poorer ­ all because
government has become a new ³profit center² for business and
special interests.
For example, Halliburton tosses a few million dollars into the
campaign pot and makes billions in profits on no-bid government
contracts with Congressional oversight specifically excluded by
Presidential order ­ and that is only one of thousands. Adding
injury to insult, the Administration tries to compensate for the
waste by slashing social programs and services for Veterans and
their families.
The trading of legislative favors for campaign contributions is
so firmly established, and accepted, that a wholesale house
cleaning of State legislatures and the Congress appears to be the
only alternative, accompanied by a new method of financing
political campaigns that puts the people back in power.
Publicly financed elections at the state and federal level have
been advocated for a long time, but haven¹t taken off because of
the logistics involved and the opposition from those benefiting
from the present system. However, with the growing public
disenchantment with the abuses and costs of current government
policies and our loss of status in the world community, the public
just might respond to a plan that promises to restore integrity and
confidence in a government ³of, by and for the people.²
For instance, limiting individual campaign contributions to $100
per candidate per election would effectively eliminate the
financial power of corporations and special interests to influence
the outcome of elections. The gerrymandering of voting districts
into tortuous shapes favoring one political party over another must
change to insure fair and equal representation of voters.
Registered voters must have the opportunity to become more involved
in selecting the candidates who will appear on the ballot instead
of being forced to choose from among names selected by party bosses
and would-be power brokers. Above all, voters must be encouraged to
vote for candidates on the basis of their ability to understand and
explain issues, to fairly and equitably represent all of their
constituents and to perform their duties with the highest level of
honor and integrity.
Is this a practical idea? Consider this: in the 2000
Presidential election, campaign contributions for Bush and Gore
totaled $325,892,689.  The total number of ballots cast for
President was 105,417,258. If each voter had contributed five
dollars to a National Campaign Fund, designating the Party or
candidate he or she wished to support, the total would have been
$554,130,000. ­ nearly twice the amount actually spent in the 2000
election for President ­ and no one contributor would have given
more than five dollars. Obviously, an individual contribution of
five dollars is not likely to sway a politician into voting against
his own conscience.
Applying this same concept to the State level, it is possible we
might be able to neutralize those charismatic, emotion-driven,
self-serving opportunistic individuals who try to stir up phony
conflicts for the purpose of publicity and self-aggrandizement.
Being empowered to buy back my own government for only five
bucks strikes me as being a real bargain!
– Bill Haigwood is a Sonoma West Times & News columnist