Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Amendment 75 – Increasing Campaign Contribution Limits When Opponent Self Funds $1M

Campaign finance laws limit the dollar amount that an individual may contribute to a candidate’s campaign. However, a candidate may currently donate or loan funds to his or her campaign without any limitation.

Amendment 75 would be triggered when a candidate donates or loans more than 1 million dollars to their own campaign or to another campaign supporting or opposing a candidate in the same contest or when a candidate coordinates third-party donations over $1M to affect the candidate’s own election. In any of these cases, the opponents would be permitted to collect 5 times the current individual contribution limits.

This is a proposed constitutional amendment because the current campaign contribution limits are noted in the constitution and adjusted for inflation every four years.

Recommendation: no/against

Most Americans agree that we have too much money in our elections. A problem with big money is that elected officials feel beholden to their big donors. This ballot issue would increase the amount big donors can give and may therefore increase the “beholden-ness” factor.

Although big money can buy big media, candidates only need saturation. At some point media become oversaturated and may turn off voters to a candidate’s message. The best use of big money may be for GOTV (get out the vote) – in other words, bodies on the ground knocking on doors and making phone calls.

Political parties usually work hard, both financially and with sweat equity, for their candidates in order to help them be viable. We don’t need media oversaturation and more “beholden-ness.”

There are some down-ballot statewide contests that deserve higher individual campaign contribution limits, particularly CU Regent-at-Large. Jared Polis’ first foray into politics was for a State Board of Education at-large seat – the at-large seat was eliminated after the 2000 census – in which he spent $1.2M of his own money, compared to about $10,000 raised by his Republican incumbent-opponent.

Big money has less impact in a local election where personal relationships mean more. In the city of Boulder, big money does not have a good track record of buying elections. Consider the municipalization issue or Scott Gessler’s failed 2003 city council bid.

In November Denver voters will decide on a ballot initiative to create a fund of up to $8M of taxpayer money to match 9 times over small donations for municipal campaigns. A $10 donation would become a $100 donation. The Denver ballot measure would better empower small donors and would likely decrease the “beholden-ness” factor.

Website for the Yes Side – Stop Buying Our Elections
https://www.stopbuyingourelection.org/

Website for the No Side
No known website – Info on an opponents’ website appreciated.


Approved Ballot Language

Amendment 75 (CONSTITUTIONAL)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution providing that if any candidate in a primary or general election for state office directs more than one million dollars in support of his or her own election, then every candidate for that office in the same election may accept five times the amount of campaign contributions normally allowed?

YES/FOR _______
NO/AGAINST _________

Amendment 75 initiative language filed with the Secretary of State
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-2018/173Final.pdf

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments. Please only make comments that add to a fruitful discussion.