What's your issue?
Most political, social, and economic issues can be worsened by money in politics. Please read how money in politics can hinder progress and also learn how fair and clean elections can solve many political, social, and economic issues!
With Clean Elections, politicians would no longer have to swing legislation in the direction of the loan industry. Candidates would be more likely give advantage to the students because these are the people that would help put government officials in office--not major special interst groups and PACs.
"Congress submits to the pressure of timber, oil, chemical, agribusiness and other big-money interests by trying to weaken environmental safeguards," said former Sierra Club President Chuck McGrady. "The main reason many politicians side with the polluters is their never-ending need for campaign cash. Public campaign financing will eliminate the influence of donors who want to weaken environmental laws, and it will shift power back to voters and volunteers."
BUT Clean Elections allows environmental advocates who lack financial support from big energy to run for office and help inform the debate on energy policy and environmental stewardship. Legislation no longer can be dominated by oil, gas and energy company contributions to candidates.
Big Pharma , Health Insurance Companies, and Health Management have given over $220 million to political campaign in order to keep the status quo and make sure legislation will be passed in their favor of profits and not for the wellness of the population. The general public suffers because of these donations and the health care industry continues to get more expensive with depleating treatments for pacients.
Clean Elections would ensure that politicians were accountable to the voters rather than to big corporate funders. The greed of Wall Street and corporations would be held in check when politicians no longer rely on them for funding their election campaigns. Economic and housing policy would be made in the best interests of the American people as a whole rather than in the interests of wealthy corporate-based elites.
Fifty-two years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the nation is far from this reality. In the United States, people of color have lower incomes and fewer financial assets than whites. They control fewer business interests and are disproportionately represented among those living in poverty. Thus, when it comes to running for office, people of color lack the access to personal wealth and the networks of large donors that many privately-funded candidates enjoy.
Clean elections: The percent of candidates of color has increased each election since clean elections was introduced. Candidates of color use the clean elections system more frequently than do white candidates.
We could lessen the extent of poverty and the level of income inequality – as do other democracies – if we had the political will. This will have only when our elected officials actually are responsive to their constituents rather than to their big funders. With “clean elections” middle income and poor citizens – like everyone else -- can have a voice, run for office, and hold politicians accountable. With “clean elections” democracy would be less unequal.
With Clean Elections, candidates can run for office without being accountable to defense contractors and energy companies seeking to protect their profits from oil.
Considering women make up over half the U.S. population, these numbers are painfully low.
With clean elections, women not connected to big money can run and win. Over 300 publicly funded campaigns have been run by women using Clean Elections since 2000.
(*Thanks to Democracymatters.org for the information on this page!)