US INFO correspondent Ralph Dannheisser outlines yet another benefit of being rich: election to public office.

The 2008 candidates are rich:

Chances are strong that the next U.S. president will be a millionaire. All three Democratic front-runners and all four of the top Republican contenders fall into that category.

And access to loads of campaign money is more important than ever:

Access to funding has assumed tremendous importance in this era of almost nonstop election campaigns and huge advertising expenses. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent in the current presidential campaign cycle.

Watch this special news coverage of former Senators Bill Bradley and Al Simpson reaching across party lines to support publicly funded federal elections. Check out the end for a great moment from Senator Simpson.

Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago, IL
March 26, 2007

One of the biggest flaws of modern democracy is the skyrocketing cost of getting elected, particularly to Congress. The huge expense distorts the process in many ways: It forces candidates to spend more and more of their time raising money and eliminates candidates unable or unwilling to do that. It raises the influence of special interests with deep pockets, and creates at the very least the perception -- and in some notorious recent cases, the reality -- that votes are for sale.

The Post-Tribune, Chicago, IL
March 27, 2007

Election financing reform is one of the most talked-about issues in Washington. It rarely moves beyond the talking stage.

Last week's introduction of the Fair Elections Reform Act offers new promise for the imposition of spending limits and public financing for elections to Congress.

For the first time, an election-financing reform bill was introduced with bipartisan support. Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., are the authors.

The proposal, which is patterned after what some cities and states have imposed, would return elections to the voters and drastically reduce the role of big special-interest money that has negatively affected our election process.

If lawmakers are serious about reforming Maryland's tax code in the near future, they ought to reform the state's campaign finance laws first. The reason is simple: Tax laws are filled with loopholes and inequities because big political donors wield enormous influence. That's just as true in Annapolis as it is in Washington. And it will always be true - unless legislators embrace the public financing of campaigns.

Want the General Assembly to pass your bill? Any lobbyist worth his Guccis will tell you that you first have to donate money to the appropriate pols. Lawmakers may claim they aren't swayed by donations, but even the most adamant defenders will admit there's at least an appearance of impropriety.

What: Please join us in NYC to discuss:

• The impact of money on our political system,

• The different approaches to solving the problem including ethics reform, and
  
• Regulation of lobbying activity and public funding of elections.

Who: A panel discussion featuring:

• Senator Warren G. Rudman, former U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, as he speaks for the first time about why he now supports public funding of federal elections.

• Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen
  
• John Rauh, founder and president of Americans for Campaign Reform
  

For just $6 per citizen, the face of political elections could change completely.

John Rauh, founder and president of Americans for Campaign Reform (ACR), brought this new and relatively controversial concept to Weston last weekend — and, in the process, created some converts to his cause.

Mr. Rauh, an advocate of public campaign funding, was in town last week to speak to the Kiwanis Club and students at Weston High School about campaign finance reform for elected federal officials.

A film crew from the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) was on hand to film the speech at the Kiwanis Club for a documentary it is developing on a subject that is gathering a great deal of national attention. ...“There are important issues facing this country. The challenges this nation and the world face are huge,” Mr. Rauh said.

Does democracy have a price?

How about $64 a vote? That's how much Dorrin Rolle spent for every vote cast in his favor in the Sept. 5 primaries. The Miami-Dade commissioner raised $408,060 to get 6,379 votes, for a job that pays $6,000 a year. Rolle's competitor, Phillip Brutus, spent $17.28 a vote -- enough to buy every sympathetic voter a bottle of Malbec, but not enough to win him the office.

The other winners for County Commission averaged somewhere in between:Katy Sorenson: $30 a vote. Rebeca Sosa, $31.65 a vote. The losers didn't come close. Take Millie Herrera, who spent just $5.45 a vote. Javier Souto outspent her by more than $25 a vote -- and won.

In a case called Randall et al. v. Sorrell et al., the U.S. Supreme Court has trashed Vermont's 1997 effort at campaign-finance reform. It was yet another indication that these are tough times in America for reformers who think of themselves as progressives, and heady times for those who call themselves conservatives.

This week's 6-3 decision involved six written opinions, which must be read as tea leaves. In the end, a majority of the justices left standing the controversial 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case, which equates political money with political speech but permits states to limit campaign contributions. The justices found Vermont's Act 64 unconstitutional in limiting how much candidates for state office could spend to get themselves elected, and they determined that the limits were too strict on how much money supporters could donate to candidates.

Imagine a system where our politicians are more responsive, our candidates focus on real issues, the special interest groups have limited influence, and "pork barrel" politics is cut down to size.

Now, imagine that this new system would cost you $6 a year.

Does that sound like a good deal?

Public funding of elections is the solution that could transform our nation's politics, according to a new group called Americans for Campaign Reform, co-chaired by four prominent former senators -- Warren Rudman, Alan Simpson, Bill Bradley and Bob Kerrey. They propose that federal money -- taxpayers' dollars -- finance the elections for the U.S. House, Senate and president.

The cost, $1.8 billion a year -- or $6 per U.S. citizen -- would replace the special interest dollars and contributions from lobbyists that currently fund much of our election system. The same type of process could be employed at the state level in Michigan, much like the public financing that's already working in Arizona and Maine.

It's no surprise that Michigan's elections are so non-competitive. Few races for state House and Senate generate a real campaign because the incumbents enjoy a massive advantage in raising dollars from the interest groups, the political action committees.