House Leaders Oppose Clean Elections
And now the BAD news. Two reports in the last two days of Democrats opposing clean elections legislation that has already passed the state government committees in both House and Senate.
First I heard it from Senate President Jack Kibbie, speaking in Pocahontas Thursday night. Kibbie backed the bill but said it had opponents “even in the Democratic Party.” sounding surprised. He didn’t say if they were senators or representatives.
The next morning Ed Fallon emailed his I’m For Iowa followers saying “leadership” was seeking to smother the bill in another House committee. Fallon says a House appropriations subcommittee currently has jurisdiction. It has only three members–David Jacoby, Jo Oldson and Dwayne Alons.
Will they do the dirty deed? Do they themselves oppose the bill? I plan to ask them. If you ask–if they answer you–let me know.
David.Jacoby@legis.state.ia.us
Jo.Oldson@legis.state.ia.us
Dwayne.Alons@legis.state.ia.us
March 25th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I sent an e-mail to my rep., Dave Jacoby, and here’s his response:
Tom,
Policy wise, it is a good bill (that needs to be less complicated). I
voted for it in State Gov’t.
We are stuck with the $10 million price tag, and where that money would
come from.
In other words, what do we not fund (education, mental health, Power
Fund).
Thank you for the e-mail!
Dave
My take is that he supports the policy, but won’t support it fully due to a lack of funding? My question is where does he get the $10 million price tag? If it’s good policy, isn’t it up to good leadership to make it work?
I will keep up the pressure and do some more digging, especially the budgetary concerns.
March 25th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I just combed through the VOICE bill (HF 305) and found where Jacoby came up with the $10 million price tag. The latter is a start up fund that would be used to finance Clean Elections. The fund would be drawn down to finance Clean Elections and would be replenished with an optional income tax checkoff, qualifying contributions, unused seed money, voluntary contributions to the Clean Election fund, and other methods. After each election cycle, if the fund is in the red, or under the $10 million benchmark, it’s up to the general assembly to replenish these funds, presumably drawing down on the general fund.
Given the voluntary basis of most incoming revenuse, it looks like the Clean Elections fund would more than likely be in the red. It seems this needs more teeth in it. I thought other states mandated the $5 fee for all persons filing an income tax. I could see how this might dissuade some of our leaders from putting this into the bill, but if funding it is the only thing standing between the bill becoming law, it’s time for our leaders to step up and take a stand.
I also found out that the only lobbyists who declared against this bill were two lobbyists representing the ACLU. What would their rationale be for doing so? I’m confused.
March 25th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Oops…that’s HF 805, not HF 305.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
The ACLU believes that money is speech in this context. They will always oppose campaign finance reform.