Democracy by Default
Next month, will you vote for Sen. Shoo-In? How about Rep. Mortal Lock? Or will you demand a level playing field?
After we've finished establishing democracy in Iraq, maybe we can try it in New Mexico. Oh, sure, we'll have elections next month, but—as in so many places across the country—most of the outcomes are preordained long before the first ballot is cast. The power of incumbency coupled with the corrosive influence of campaign contributions makes all but a handful of congressional races guaranteed landslides, the challengers mere sacrificial lambs.
Just look at the major races voters in Southern New Mexico get to decide on next month. Does anybody seriously think Sen. Jeff Bingaman won't be re-elected? Can you even name his Republican challenger? (It's Farmington urologist Allen McCulloch.) As of mid-summer, the Rasmussen Reports poll put Bingaman ahead, 59 to 33 percent. That lead is only likely to grow as Bingaman resumes buying TV commercials, given his vast campaign war chest—$3.4 million as of June 30, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, compared to McCulloch's paltry $315,104.
Although gubernatorial races, where term limits cut short the power of incumbency, can often be competitive, Gov. Bill Richardson is likewise a shoo-in. The only real question come November will be whether Richardson breaks the magic 60 percent mark that would help fuel his presidential ambitions. As of mid-summer, the Rasmussen poll has him close, leading 56 to 32 percent over GOP challenger John Dendahl (a last-minute replacement when the original nominee found the task of facing Richardson too daunting).
It's not just Democrats who have a lock on re-election next month. GOP Rep. Steve Pearce looks unbeatable, despite the unpopularity of his party's president and the Iraq war and a nationwide trend that may see the Democrats retake the House. Two years ago, the Democrats recruited an experienced candidate, Gary King (who this election cycle is aiming for the greener pastures of the attorney general's office in Santa Fe), who raised more than $1 million in campaign funds. After Pearce won in 2004 with 61 percent of the vote, however, Democratic powers-that-be seemed to throw up their hands and concede the Second District seat until Pearce retires or dies.
As we pointed out in a 2004 pre-election look at the Second District race, Pearce is a magnet for money from the oil and gas industry. That's no less true in 2006, with Pearce having raised $944,535 by the June 30 reporting deadline. His top donors, as computed by the Center for Responsive Politics? Marbob Energy Corp. ($14,300) and Mack Energy ($11,900), with Yates Drilling not far behind ($8,000).
Al Kissling, a former minister who was the only Democrat willing to take on Pearce this year, had raised a meager $81,043 by the reporting cutoff. With Kissling's largest contribution being just $3,000 from the National Committee for an Effective Congress, his supporters in Silver City recently resorted to holding a bake sale. Though organizers Marta Green and Gerry Niva should be commended for their pluck, the $468.39 they raised adds up to less than eight percent of what either the National Rifle Association, Qwest Communications or the National Mining Association coughed up for Pearce, $6,000 apiece. Big business and big special interests are going to beat bake sales every time.
Kissling shouldn't feel too bad, however: Ronald Dolin, the Republican sacrificial lamb in New Mexico's Third District against Tom Udall, had raised only $11,683 by June 30. The Center for Responsive Politics' Web site (www.opensecrets.org) says only of Dolin's "Top Contributors" list, "This candidate received no contributions large enough to generate this list." (Perhaps Democrats in Santa Fe need to consider redistricting to put some of Udall's voters—he won by nearly 100,000 votes in 2004—into the Second District, to make our race more competitive in the future.)
The state's only truly competitive congressional race is the First District, where Democrats hope Attorney General Patricia Madrid can knock off Rep. Heather Wilson and help shift the balance of power in the House. Even so, as of June 30 the incumbent had out-fundraised Madrid, $2.9 million to $1.8 million.
What can be done to give voters real choices? Term limits are often proposed as a cure-all, but they seem mostly to guarantee inexperienced officeholders with nothing at stake, instant lame ducks. Certainly, meaningful campaign-finance reform is long overdue, but past efforts suggest that moneyed special interests will always find loopholes through which they can continue to buy politicians' favor.
In a survey of leading lawmakers several years ago sponsored by the Center for Responsive Politics, many argued that the only true fix was some form of public financing of congressional campaigns, similar to the system used in presidential elections. Although most Republicans opposed public financing, one GOP conservative spoke in favor public financing as necessary to curb the apparent and actual abuses under the present system.
Ironically, though, lawmakers from both parties agreed that public financing of congressional races is politically impossible: "The public, they said, will oppose politicians who call for financing campaigns with tax revenues and brand them as favoring 'welfare for politicians.' None of those interviewed said that they believe the electorate will accept the view that public financing is the only sure way of freeing the making of public policy from being dominated by moneyed special interests."
Some lawmakers in the survey also backed requiring broadcasters to provide mandatory free airtime to qualified candidates. Ultimately, short of public financing, this may be the only practical step to restore an even playing field to our elections. In today's campaigns, money equals media; candidates who can't buy TV time simply can't compete.
"Wait a minute!" you may be saying at this point. "Why should TV and radio stations have to give candidates free advertising? There are a couple of paid political ads in this issue of Desert Exposure—shouldn't newspapers have to give away space for political ads, too?"
The difference, of course, is that Desert Exposure—or the Sun-News, for that matter—isn't distributed using a medium that belongs to the American public. Newspapers and other print publications don't print on publicly owned presses or use paper and ink that's on loan from John and Jane Q. Public. Broadcasters do. Though TV and radio stations often view their licenses as mere licenses to print money, in fact they are licensed "in the public interest." The broadcast frequencies commercial stations use to pepper the airwaves with endless "Laverne and Shirley" reruns, "America's Next Top Model" and pro wrestling actually belong to us, the American people.
It's time we started demanding that some small fraction of our airwaves be dedicated to the preservation of our democracy. Give candidates free radio and TV time in amounts adequate to blunt the effects of commercial spots otherwise purchased for political puffery and deceptive negative ads. But dole out the free time only in increments of two minutes or more, so candidates would have to say something instead of making hit-and-run attacks. (I'd make that five minutes, but such commercials wouldn't fit in TV schedules and antsy viewers probably would change the channel.)
Naive? Maybe. But when you go into the voting booth next month, take a moment to reflect on whether you have any real choices in these top races. How much did you learn about the underfunded challenger in the course of the campaign? Did he have a fair chance to convince you to make a change? Or did you hear a steady drumbeat of reasons to retain the incumbent, and hardly a peep about the challenger—you know, whatsisname?
David A. Fryxell is editor of Desert Exposure.