Matching Grant Challenge
BruceMatch
We’re slowly making headway in our annual fund drive, but not nearly fast enough to meet our make-or-break goal.  On the bright side, a generous CounterPuncher has stepped forward with a pledge to match every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate.
 unnamed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Clean Money in Albany Now

McCutcheon on the Hudson

by HOWIE HAWKINS and STEVE BREYMAN

Yesterday’s US Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC removed limits on the total amount that rich donors could contribute to all candidates in an electoral cycle. The need for a voluntary system of public campaign financing for candidates to run with no-strings-attached clean money is now greater than ever.

With the recent passage of the state budget, Governor Andrew Cuomo and legislative leaders missed an opportunity to enact just such a system. What New Yorkers got was a watered down partial public financing system for Comptroller races only. That minor “reform” does not change the basic picture: New York has the best government money can buy.

The “reform,” based on New York City’s system, throws good public money after bad private money, and was justifiably opposed by Senate Republicans (who have offered no alterative to the corruption-inducing status quo). It is inferior to the partial public financing system in place in New York City because it has no limits on the amount of private money a candidate may spend. The New York City system caps private spending for candidates who opt for public financing at the same level as the maximum public grant they can receive.

The “reform” does nothing to halt the Governor’s voracious gobbling of contributions from the super rich (who are amply rewarded with tax cuts in the budget). Forty-five percent of his re-election campaign fund came from donations of $40,000 or more, eighty percent from donations of $10,000 or more, and less than one percent from donations of under $1,000. Does anybody believe that the last minute pro charter school changes in the state budget had nothing to do with the nearly $400,000 in donations to Cuomo from hedge fund operators who are board members of Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy and the $5 million attack ad campaign against Mayor de Blasio by a pro charter PAC funded by billionaires?

Watered down partial public financing is akin to presidential primary matching funds: a reform that doesn’t reform. It is the campaign finance reform equivalent of Obamacare (compared to Medicare for All, Obamacare does too little to meet the health care needs of millions of Americans, and nothing at all for millions more who neither qualify for it nor for Medicaid). And like Obamacare, it makes genuine reform—real progress—harder to achieve as advocates for genuine change will be told ‘we did campaign finance reform; go away.’

New Yorkers deserve better. If we could start from scratch—with the aim of eliminating pay-to-play and other corrupt practices—what might a redesigned campaign funding system look like? We’re confident that it would appear identical to the systems in place in Maine and Arizona, also known as Clean Money, Clean Elections.

Clean Money provides full public financing for qualified candidates, removes “dirty” private money, tightens financial reporting, applies equally to all political parties, and mandates that candidates who receive public campaign funding participate in debates. In Arizona and Maine, candidates qualify for equal public campaign grants by raising a reasonable number of $5 contributions from voters in their district to demonstrate support. The $5 donations go to the state’s Clean Money Fund. The grants are sufficient to get the candidate’s message to all voters. Candidates who opt for public money may not raise private money. They only use clean public money.

Supporters of partial public financing will likely accuse us of having the ‘perfect be the enemy of the good.’ ‘This is the best Albany can do, you’re asking too much; be realistic.’ Nonsense. Arizona is more progressive than New York? Were the supporters of pseudo-reform to level with New Yorkers, to sponsor a genuine, open debate on the competing proposals, Clean Money would win hands down.

Fortunately for New Yorkers, there is a Clean Money bill in both the Assembly (A4116-2013) and the Senate (S4501-2013). Ask your legislators to press for hearings, debate and votes on these bills. New Yorkers deserve no less.

Howie Hawkins was the Green candidate for New York Governor in 2010 and is seeking the Green nomination in 2014. 

Steve Breyman is Environmental Protection Agency Administrator in the Green Shadow Cabinet.