Past Events

___________

Mass Voters participated in these Boston Social Forum workshops in July 2004:

Public Financing: The need, status and benefits
Alexandra Russell of Mass Voters For Fair Elections with Micah Sifry from Public Campaign of Washington D.C. will provide historical perspective on the movement for public financing in Massachusetts and a comparison with other states and their level of public funding. In addition it will present an interactive overview of the problem of big money in politics/our broken democracy and how we see publicly financed debates as one of the most effective solutions. After this overview it will show a short video (10 minutes) that outlines the success stories of Maine and Arizona, two states that have candidates running locally and statewide with public funds. The last section of the workshop will be questions, comments and discussion.

Tools for Improving Democracy
Alex Russell from Mass Voters for Fair Elections and Micah Sifry from Public Campaign will participate in a panel discussion. You are invited to participate in a lively discussion on the state of our democracy and the examples of reforms that would reinvigorate civic participation

___________

Speakers Bureau
In Hadley in May 2004, M.A. Swedlund, Alice Swift, and Lauren Mattison, the local members of the Mass Voters for Clean Elections Steering Committee, shared our new presentation materials and discussed how you can use these materials to educate others. Please contact us for more information.

___________

University of Massachusetts Amherst
On Thursday, December 4, several students and a professor attended an educational forum about Clean Elections held on the UMass campus.

Clean Elections event the top story in the Massachusetts Daily Collegian
event flyer, press release
___________

Democracy and Reform in Massachusetts, Hadley
In October 2003, 75 people attended this Town Hall meeting in Hadley. Thanks to all who attended and helped plan this meeting, and special thanks to our speakers, 4 state representatives from the Pioneer Valley: Peter Kocot, Stephen Kulik, John Scibak, and Ellen Story. This great event sent a strong signal that the clean and fair elections movement is alive and growing! Similar meetings are being held this fall throughout the state, from the Cape to the Berkshires.
___________

Berkshires

In March 2004, two candidates for State Representative were invited to Cummington for a Town Hall Meeting about Clean Elections. click for more information

click for more information
___________

Brookline
click for more information, click for more information
___________

Cape Cod
click for more information
___________

Springfield
click for more information
___________

Northampton
In June 2003, over 50 clean elections supporters turned out to support the Clean Elections movement with speakers Warren Tolman, former Democratic state senator and Clean Elections candidate for governor in 2002; John Bonifaz, executive director of the National Voting Rights Institute; and Jill Stein, Green party candidate for governor in 2002. Thanks to our speakers and our host at the Good Thyme Deli.
click for event photos

___________

The Ongoing Struggle for Civil Rights at the Ballot

In the spring of 2003, MVCE cohosted the forum Making Democracy Work for Everyone.
Reverend George Allison, the former Executive Director of NAACP North Carolina, was our keynote speaker.
Here are some excerpts from his speech:

IS CAMPAIGN FINANCE A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE
Reverend George Allison

“First, we must have a clear understanding of what Campaign Finance is. A simplified definition would be: Campaign Finance is the method of funding the candidacy of a citizen seeking the opportunity to serve in a governmental position for the people of that governmental Jurisdiction.  As a result of this desire to serve, the candidate needs to get his/her message out to the voting constituency so that he/she is introduced to the public that they wish to serve.  Simply put, if you want your voting constituency to vote for you, you must make sure they know something about you and or about your position on various issues that impact the citizenry.

This gives rise to two key elements needed for a successful political campaign and they are: votes and money to reach the voters.  However, the problem occurs when the desire to obtain the money exceeds that of reaching and serving the needs of the voters.  As election costs rise, wealthy special interests gain more clout and voters lose out. The question is: who are the special interest groups? In North Carolina 95% are white, 80% are men, 81% have annual incomes over $100,00.00. Translation - 1% of our state’s population gives 90% of all campaign contributions. A survey of donors to congressional races in 1996 found that: 95% of the donors were white and 81% had annual income over $100,000. It has also been revealed by Public Campaign that the highest giving zip codes have an average minority population below 9%. Thus, the need for campaign finance reform.

But the question still remains, how do we connect this to civil rights or is campaign finance a Civil Rights issue? It is quite simple really. Since African Americans and other Minorities have a decidedly less annual income, we are at an overwhelming disadvantage when money is the deciding factor in whether you can equitably participate in the electoral process. The Civil Rights of the citizenry are provided and guaranteed via the Constitution. In one paragraph of the Preamble of the Massachusetts State Constitution, we find:

[Excerpts from the Massachusetts State Constitution Preamble]

The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.

The key phrase is the whole people covenants with each citizen. When big money is the determining factor in an election, the people aren't whole and the covenant only respects the highest donors. Thus, one can clearly make the argument that the Constitution is violated.

Another key phrase is an impartial interpretation. How impartial can anyone be if they have to constantly think about satisfying the needs of their large donors versus the needs of their Voting Constituency?

Example: A large corporation that contributes heavily to a candidate's political campaign is more likely to get bills passed that is in their favor than the citizenry that voted the candidate into office.

Article VI. No man, nor corporation, or association of men, have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges, distinct from those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the public; and this title being in nature neither hereditary, nor transmissible to children, or descendants, or relations by blood, the idea of a man born a magistrate, lawgiver, or judge, is absurd and unnatural.

Again, since the state Constitution grants Civil Rights to all citizens within its jurisdiction, no one should be able to gain advantage over another for the sake of a title and or privilege. The campaign system as is provides that opportunity for those with access to big money while the big money deny those without access to it. In a nutshell, quite often the most qualified candidates never get their name on the ballot because of the lack of finance. Wealth should never be the determining factor as to whether a candidate is electable or not."