Last of two parts
Part one can be found at thevoice.us/incumbents-in-congress-continue-with-unfair-advantage.
Tommy Sowers, Missouri 8th Congressional District candidate, posted April 2010 an article entitled: “The Cancer of Incumbency.”
The former special forces soldier left a leadership position at the VA (Veterans Affairs) where he served as assistant secretary of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. He holds a doctorate in economics from the London School of Economics. He was the Democratic nominee for Congress in 2010 for Missouri’s 8th Congressional District. He deployed twice to Iraq.
He explained in part one about ongoing partisan paralysis. He continues:
“The U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate and labor campaign expenditures, despite overwhelming numbers of both Democratic and Republican voters in opposition, only spreads the cancer. The real beneficiaries of this ruling are special interests and the incumbents they almost universally support over challengers.
“In the last election cycle, special interests gave 700% more funds (PDF) to incumbents vs. challengers. This special interest money to politics is like steroids to baseball, bulking up those incumbents and giving them an unnatural advantage in an already unfair fight. It leaves challengers who work hard to raise their funds from individuals having to work even harder to level a steep field.
“While money will always flow into politics, we can isolate its effects. A competitive campaign for the House costs on average $2 Million dollars. From the day of election, candidates must immediately raise $20,000 each and every week in the two years up to the next election. This is much easier to do as an incumbent; my opponent can simply be host to $1,000-a-plate fundraisers in D.C., compelling lobbyists to attend with the threat of lost access.
“A simple solution would be to shorten the time when campaigns could raise or spend money. A law that restricted fundraising or expending funds by campaign committees to the year of the election would make races more competitive. Moreover, it would afford legislators the opportunity to take a break from fundraising to do the legislating they are sent to do.
“Another treatment would be to eliminate the war chests. Currently, when a citizen contributes to a federal campaign, they give for a specific election, currently the 2010 election. But federal candidates are unlimited on how long and when they spend the money. Most incumbents keep hundreds of thousands of dollars as war chests of unused campaign funds. Because the funds are given for specific elections, a law stating all unused funds should be given back at the end of a campaign would treat the disease.
“A final treatment would be citizen-funded elections. While a public disgusted with Congress may be loathe to dedicate tax dollars to support campaigns, the truth is this: We already pay. We pay in policies that favor narrow special interests. We pay with legislators beholden to those who can contribute instead of their constituents. The Fair Elections Now Act, with a proposed system of $100 donations from constituents with matching public funds for qualifying candidates, is deficit-neutral and would be another step towards controlling the cancer of incumbency.
“While many pundits and commentators discuss the problem of incumbency, the thousands of voters I met, are far more interested in the cures. We must start to cure our Nation with legislative reform and kill the cancer of incumbency,” Sowers wrote.
He has been busy with management consulting, teaching, and work in the U.S. Department of Defense. He received a PhD from the London School of Economics in 2011.