Jacoby: Clean Elections “Darn Good Bill”

Johnson county state representative David Jacoby says HF 805 (VOICE bill) is “darn good” and he is “not opposed”.

He did not say he would do anything to advance the bill out of his subcommittee of the appropriations committee, but I didn’t ask that. I slipped up by merely asking if he was opposed to the bill. (Also see comments in the previous post.)

He noted, however, that finding the money to fund the bill means something else won’t get funded. I can see everyone ostensibly supporting clean elections but not actually enacting the legislation out of cost concerns. Jacoby says something else will have to get cut. Surely he means something will get a smaller increase, since the state budget revenues are growing sharply.

I think clean elections will pay for themselves once they get going. If legislators don’t have to do favors for contributors, the state coffers should be easier to manage. Those private campaign contributions don’t look like state money, but they often get repaid with state money–either tax cuts for special groups like factory farms or pork barrel spending like the Iowa Values (corporate welfare) Fund.

In the mean time, bite the bullet: fund the future with clean elections. It’s your move, Rep. Jacoby. Advance the bill.

Readers can encourage him via this address:

David.Jacoby@legis.state.ia.us

Here’s the full email from Rep. Jacoby:

“I am not opposed to the bill. It is a darn good bill.
The policy section needs some clean up (a little too complicated). The bottom line is where to find $ 10 million (at least) in the budget. No proponent of the legislation has offered an idea of what area to cut. The $ 10 m does come out of the general fund and will directly affect someone else.

Dave

One Response to “Jacoby: Clean Elections “Darn Good Bill””

  1. T.M. Lindsey Says:

    Dave Jacoby is not being completely forthright about you on this issue. Cleaning up the policy section is not a reason to “kill” the bill in committee, nor is the vague it’s “too complicated” excuse. I read through the bill and it didn’t seem too complicated to me. Sure, implementing a major reform law to help reclaim Democracy will be challenging and complicated, but that’s why our leaders need to be willing to roll up their sleeves and get to work. I wonder if complicated had been inserted in lieu of “inconvenient.”

    Furthermore, proponents of the bill have provided funding measures which include an optional income tax check off, seem money and qualifying contributions collected by candidates, fines levied for for breaking the rules, private donations to the clean elections fund, and so on. These are all listed in the bill.

    The biggest funding stream for this bill is detailed in section 28, subsection 7 of the bill which states: “Money pursuant from unclaimed or abandoned property in the state’s custody pursuant to Chapter 556.” I’ve been informed by a lobbyist acting in favor of this bill that this funding stream alone will generate more than the $10 million needed to find and maintain the clean elections fund.

    I will e-mail Dave Jacoby again with this information, and see how he responds to this. I encourage everyone else who reads this to do so as well.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.