WHY ENVIRONMENTALISTS SHOULD SUPPORT

“CLEAN ELECTIONS” PUBLIC FUNDING OF CAMPAIGNS

By Sean Dobson

In 1999, the Maryland General Assembly passed a California-style electricity law at the behest of the state’s big utilities and big industries. As the law is not yet fully phased in, we don’t know if deregulation in Maryland will turn out to be a disaster for consumers as it is in California.

But there is no question that it will be bad news for the environment. That’s because before deregulation, utilities – which were responsible for both the generation and transmission of electricity -- had some incentive to encourage energy conservation. They could avoid the regulatory and political headaches of building new power plants (as well as the cost of buying extra and high-priced power on the interstate spot market) by investing in efficiency and encouraging conservation. After deregulation, however, companies such as PEPCO and Baltimore Gas & Electric have either sold or spun off their power plants into separate companies and now simply provide electricity to homes and businesses through their power lines. As Ed Osann of the Natural Resources Defense Council explains, “Because their revenues are now based on how much power goes through the wires, there’s no incentive for them to encourage conservation. And the companies that generate the power clearly don’t have any incentive because they’re operating those plants to sell all the power they can generate.”

Environmental activists and pro-conservation lawmakers, notably Senator Brian Frosh, tried to block deregulation. Since then, they have attempted to amend the law, so far without success. Considering their excellent record in moving legislation, what can explain the triumph of California-style electricity deregulation in Maryland? Answer: The massive campaign contributions and lobbying budgets of the corporate interests that will reap a bonanza from unfettered deregulation: electricity generators and distributors as well as their large industrial customers.

When we look at the campaign contributions of these two sectors to Maryland politicians in 1998, they total $467,640. Against this tidal wave of cash, environmental organizations contributed $4,869 -- for roughly a 100:1 discrepancy.

All those industry campaign contributions give the corporate big boys access in Annapolis. Big lobbying budgets widen that access further.

In the 1990s, this corporate advantage was largely offset by the fact that Maryland had the most environmentally progressive Governor in the nation, Parris Glendening. Those days are gone. Moreover, the massive corporate advantage over environmentalists in money is especially dangerous considering Maryland’s estimated $1.2 billion budget deficit.

Will lawmakers balance the budget by closing tax loopholes for big corporations and the rich? Or will they do so by dismantling Smart Growth and Bay cleanup? One thing is certain: under the current campaign finance system, corporate campaign contributors will have the loudest voice in this debate because lawmakers, in effect, owe their jobs to them.

Towards a Solution:

“Clean Elections” Public Funding of Campaigns

To level the playing field for environmentalists in Maryland, we need to reduce the campaign finance advantage of the big corporate polluters.

Strict limits on fundraising and expenditures would accomplish this goal. But the Supreme Court refuses to countenance mandatory campaign expenditure limits, calling them a violation of free speech.

It is futile to tinker around the edges of a campaign finance system whose main features the courts declare sacrosanct. We need to adopt a proven alternative to that system. That alternative is Clean Elections campaign finance reform as practiced in Arizona and Maine.

Here’s how it works:

To participate, a candidate must demonstrate broad community support by collecting a large number of small contributions in the district the candidate wishes to represent.

If successful, the candidate receives enough money from the public Treasury to wage a competitive campaign. If a privately financed opponent outspends the candidate, he/she receives offsetting funds to keep pace, up to a certain limit.

Advantages of Clean Elections:

It enables citizens with community support but ordinary financial means to run for office.

By encouraging electoral competition, public funding widens debate. It frees candidates and lawmakers from incessant fundraising, removing the appearance and reality of corruption.

Participation in the publicly funded system is voluntary; and by leaving the private campaign finance system alone, the Act is immune to judicial challenge.

Clean Elections candidates who win owe nothing to fat cat contributors, reducing the latter’s privileged access in Annapolis.

Maryland’s Clean Elections system would cost less than $2 per resident per year – a small price to pay for real democracy and significantly less than the current system, which lavishes pork on special interest contributors.

Clean Elections reform has already been implemented in Maine and Arizona, where it is accomplishing all the benefits described above.

Join the growing movement in Maryland to bring Clean Elections to our state, a movement that includes the Sierra Club, AARP, the League of Women Voters, AFL-CIO, Common Cause/Maryland, United Methodist Church, NAACP, American Jewish Congress, and dozens of other groups. Contact Sean Dobson of Progressive Maryland at sean@progressivemaryland.org or 301.495.7004.