Trading an expensive system of public financing for an affordable one
Doris Haddock to Gov. John G. Rowland of Connecticut. Delivered on the Connecticut State Capitol steps, Thursday, April 27, 2000
Thank you.
I am speaking to you here present, dear friends, but I ask you to only witness my remarks, for they are directed to Governor Rowland.
Dear Governor Rowland,
You are in an awkward position, but that is the very position where leadership shows itself and history is made.
You are faced with the decision to sign or veto an historic bill that promises to place Connecticut in the forefront of representative government reform, yet it is a bill opposed by many in your own party.
This bill, which provides for the public financing of candidates who choose to say "no" to all special interest campaign donations, comes at a time when citizens believe that their voices in government are drowned out by floods of special interest money, and they are right. No one seriously argues that point anymore. The flood is too great, and the preoccupation of candidates and officials with fundraising nears its completion, fully eclipsing the interests of everyday constituents.
So here is a bill, finally, that provides a dramatic and fundamental correction to the system, yet it is unpopular with your party, and for several reasons. Let us look at these reasons.
First, it is argued that the taxpayers' money should not go to candidates. After all, many of the candidates are people we could never vote for, so why would we want to support their campaigns with our tax dollars? Of course, we support all kinds of people we do not approve of with our tax dollars, starting with our prison budgets. We do not support them, we support a system that provides for a functioning society. Our tax dollars print the names of our political foes on our ballots. Our tax dollars provide for the primary elections of parties we disagree with. We do all of this in the name of democracy. It is an expensive affair. It is the infrastructure of our decision-making system.
It is like financing our road repairs. Our tax dollars cannot serve our own interests unless they serve the interests of all. So we must not worry that some of our tax dollars go to help candidates with whom we do not agree. We support them with our tax dollars after they are elected, and we can do so in the election process as well --especially if it means taking the special interests out of the driver's seat.
Governor Rowland, you must understand that financing our elections by its very nature means financing the good candidates and bad, providing the public with as much information as possible about each candidate and their views, so that we can make a well-informed decision. The expense of getting this information to us is a proper public purpose.
Secondly, I would make the point, Governor, that public interest groups on the left and right, from the Cato Institute to Common Cause, agree that, for every dollar given to a candidate by a special interest group, over ten dollars in special tax breaks are given in return. This is nothing less than full public financing, but it is a poor system of public financing. By directly providing for the expense of campaigns, we can eliminate nine of the ten dollars paid by taxpayers --now paid in the form of tax loopholes for special interests.
Governor, if you are a true conservative, will you not trade a corrupt system of public financing for a clean one that costs the taxpayers one-tenth as much? Is that not the essence of smaller, more efficient government?
Governor, surely you see that the arguments that the taxpayers should not fund the vital business of free elections is not a good argument. Surely you can see that it is put forward by those who now own the system by virtue of the dark contributions they make and take.
But how can you do the right thing and not alienate many members of your party?
Can they not be persuaded to conduct a bold experiment in this time when citizens are disengaging from civil life and from voting? Can a leader bring them around to break some eggs and make something new and exciting in the face of this despair and apathy? That is the essence of enterprise government, is it not?
And can your party members put on their most practical hats and realize that, henceforth, if this bill is vetoed, all future scandals and all future news of special interest influence will fall at the feet of this governor and this party? Is it not best to let the experiment run and let it fail of its own devices if it is flawed?
That is the practical approach. There is no advantage to being the man who stopped reform in a day when reform's time is upon us. That would mark the end of a career, not its beginning.
Finally Governor, let me address you as the leader of this state's police and military powers. It is you who must call men and women to fatal duty to defend our system of government. Would you send the Connecticut Guard off bravely to defend a system of corrupt special interest influence? To do so would tear at your heart, I believe, and I would rather you felt joy and patriotism in your leadership.
To honor these people and those who have given their lives in service, will you agree that the present system of organized corruption can and ought to be set aside for this experiment, born of a love of democracy and a trust in the people's good sense?
Governor Rowland, on behalf of my own generation, most of whom are gone, many of whom have served this country and held high the idea that we are a free and equal people, I ask you with all my heart to give this important American reform its day, its chance to prove itself.
Governor Rowland, on behalf of my great grandchildren, for whom I hope to leave a better democracy, I beg you to do the brave and right thing, as your heart may see it.
Thank you.