This article is from the source 'theintercept' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/08/part-rep-john-sarbanes-government-people-act/
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Rep. John Sarbanes' Government by the People Act Aims to De-Suck D.C. | Rep. John Sarbanes' Government by the People Act Aims to De-Suck D.C. |
| (2 days later) | |
| For most people, I think, the unremitting news about how the richest 0.01 percent own American politics is like a doctor who tells you you have a terrible disease — and when you ask what the treatment is, says I have absolutely no idea. | For most people, I think, the unremitting news about how the richest 0.01 percent own American politics is like a doctor who tells you you have a terrible disease — and when you ask what the treatment is, says I have absolutely no idea. |
| Then the doctor starts calling you up first thing every morning at 8 a.m. to say I just want to remind you that you have a terrible disease. Around the 10th call you stop answering the phone, no matter how awful you feel. | Then the doctor starts calling you up first thing every morning at 8 a.m. to say I just want to remind you that you have a terrible disease. Around the 10th call you stop answering the phone, no matter how awful you feel. |
| That’s especially so ever since the Supreme Court declared even the flimsy restrictions on money in politics put in place since the 1970s to be unconstitutional. If our only hope is to amend the Constitution — which requires first a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate and then approval from three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures — then it feels like we’re doomed. | That’s especially so ever since the Supreme Court declared even the flimsy restrictions on money in politics put in place since the 1970s to be unconstitutional. If our only hope is to amend the Constitution — which requires first a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate and then approval from three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures — then it feels like we’re doomed. |
| But what if there were a way to approach this hellish problem from the opposite direction? If we’re forbidden by the Supreme Court from limiting money coming from the 0.01 percent, what about amplifying money from the bottom 99.99 percent? | But what if there were a way to approach this hellish problem from the opposite direction? If we’re forbidden by the Supreme Court from limiting money coming from the 0.01 percent, what about amplifying money from the bottom 99.99 percent? |
| That’s the basis for the Government by the People Act, introduced last year by Rep. John Sarbanes, a Democrat from Maryland’s 3rd District. (If the name sounds familiar, that’s probably because his father, Paul, was a five-term senator from Maryland.) | That’s the basis for the Government by the People Act, introduced last year by Rep. John Sarbanes, a Democrat from Maryland’s 3rd District. (If the name sounds familiar, that’s probably because his father, Paul, was a five-term senator from Maryland.) |
| Sarbanes has quietly garnered 160 co-sponsors for the bill and support from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and a companion bill in the Senate introduced by Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) has 19 co-sponsors. | Sarbanes has quietly garnered 160 co-sponsors for the bill and support from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and a companion bill in the Senate introduced by Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) has 19 co-sponsors. |
| The bill has three main parts: | The bill has three main parts: |
| All voters receive $25 per year to give to political campaigns, provided in the form of a refundable tax credit equal to half of donations up to $50. (For instance, if you donate $30 to a candidate, you get $15 of that back; to get the full $25 you have to donate $50.) | All voters receive $25 per year to give to political campaigns, provided in the form of a refundable tax credit equal to half of donations up to $50. (For instance, if you donate $30 to a candidate, you get $15 of that back; to get the full $25 you have to donate $50.) |
| Donations up to $150 to qualifying House and Senate candidates are matched 6 to 1 with public money. In other words, if your next door neighbor is running for Congress and you give her $50, she’ll get another $300, making $350 total. | Donations up to $150 to qualifying House and Senate candidates are matched 6 to 1 with public money. In other words, if your next door neighbor is running for Congress and you give her $50, she’ll get another $300, making $350 total. |
| And donations are matched 9 to 1 for candidates who completely renounce big money and take only donations of $150 or less. So if your neighbor is willing to do that, your $50 donation would turn into $500 total for her. (Moreover, if you use your $25 tax credit, that $500 she received would only cost you $25 total.) | And donations are matched 9 to 1 for candidates who completely renounce big money and take only donations of $150 or less. So if your neighbor is willing to do that, your $50 donation would turn into $500 total for her. (Moreover, if you use your $25 tax credit, that $500 she received would only cost you $25 total.) |
| Candidates would be eligible for enhanced matching funds in the last 60 days before an election, with incentives so they would only access the funds if it’s a particularly high-cost race. | Candidates would be eligible for enhanced matching funds in the last 60 days before an election, with incentives so they would only access the funds if it’s a particularly high-cost race. |
| • • • | • • • |
| I recently spoke with Rep. Sarbanes in depth about the Government by the People Act. In the first part of the interview he explains the rationale for his bill, how it would change politicians’ behavior and how similar systems are already having an impact on a state and local level. In part two Sarbanes describes how he markets this idea, why it could not just change campaign financing but plausibly diminish the impact of big-money lobbying, and how it would keep incumbents like himself on their toes. | |
| (This post is from our blog: Unofficial Sources.) | (This post is from our blog: Unofficial Sources.) |
| Photo: Timothy Jacobsen/AP | Photo: Timothy Jacobsen/AP |