Comments on: House Leaders Oppose Clean Elections http://iowavoters.org/2007/03/24/house-leaders-oppose-clean-elections/ for Open and Transparent Elections Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:47:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0 by: Amy http://iowavoters.org/2007/03/24/house-leaders-oppose-clean-elections/#comment-7471 Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:19:31 +0000 http://iowavoters.org/2007/03/24/house-leaders-oppose-clean-elections/#comment-7471 The ACLU believes that money is speech in this context. They will always oppose campaign finance reform. The ACLU believes that money is speech in this context. They will always oppose campaign finance reform.

]]> by: T.M. Lindsey http://iowavoters.org/2007/03/24/house-leaders-oppose-clean-elections/#comment-6683 Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:57:44 +0000 http://iowavoters.org/2007/03/24/house-leaders-oppose-clean-elections/#comment-6683 Oops...that's HF 805, not HF 305. Oops…that’s HF 805, not HF 305.

]]> by: T.M. Lindsey http://iowavoters.org/2007/03/24/house-leaders-oppose-clean-elections/#comment-6682 Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:51:37 +0000 http://iowavoters.org/2007/03/24/house-leaders-oppose-clean-elections/#comment-6682 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. 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.

]]> by: T.M. Lindsey http://iowavoters.org/2007/03/24/house-leaders-oppose-clean-elections/#comment-6678 Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:54:01 +0000 http://iowavoters.org/2007/03/24/house-leaders-oppose-clean-elections/#comment-6678 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. 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.

]]>