2006
Week 7
February 17, 2006

Hi

Shootout at the Highdome Corral. Campaign Finance limits were on the line.

[A quick side note is overdue. I do not use names or reference quotes in these essays unless the subject is that person. When working on a book or article I do document sources. However, these epistles are meant to communicate ideas and impressions of my working environment. Also, I do not want someone's mind to take off on a sketchy point about a person. I am in empathy with Dick Cheney this week. Giving a quick, incomplete story to the press and public is not only dangerous - it leads to imaginative conclusion that come more from the reporter or reader than from the facts.]

Meanwhile, back at the Highdome Corral. The shootout had all the elements of "High Noon" - including the time. Two lawyer senators, with long legislative experience and top respect, agreed to put their differences up to a vote of the body before they are term-limited out. Up or down by 12 noon. One of them feels passionately that our current limits are "wildly successful" but need a few corrections. The other is just as passionate that the plan should be junked.

We voted first on a package of corrections, to get the law as good as we could, and then on an amendment that would delete all sections except disclosure of $$$ sources. The test vote was 28 to 16, 5 not voting, to keep the ‘new improved’ version.

A very quick summary of our $$$ limits procedure. Each elected office has different limits and each candidate declares at the start whether to be "abiding" or not. If non-abiding, you must state how much you intend to go over. If one candidate abides and the other not, the one abiding can receive funds to even the playing field a bit, up to the amount that the opponent is over. Almost all candidates abide, so Nebraska races are not nearly as expensive as they used to be.

The trick is in notifying the commission in time that you are going to be over, so your opponent is able to make use of the funds before the election. We have a major brouhaha about a candidate who played games with that and paid a large fine. Timing was the major piece of the amendments.

The arguments. Those opposing limits say disclosure is enough. Candidates should be able to spend as much money as they can get, but they must say whose money it is. Opponents also point out that outside groups can campaign against someone, outside the limits, and the attackee should be allowed to use unlimited resources to respond. Also, a few said limits protect incumbents from well-funded attempts to take them out. Much was said about not limiting "free speech."

Supporters say disclosure means little. It usually comes after the election. Also, free speech is not free. Challengers have a difficult time raising money, since special interests fear crossing an incumbent who usually will win. Clearly, I would not be in the legislature if my opponent had no spending limits. My small resources would have been overwhelmed.

Campaigning by outsiders is a challenge. One wealthy national group simply bought out the primary nomination of one of our congressmen last year, by fabricating and promoting negative stories about his opponent. This year the same group is getting ready to do it again for another of our congressional delegation. Persons who cannot even vote in Nebraska expect to pick the candidate! That is plain dishonest in reviewing relative merits of the candidates, but it is legal.

What's at stake with limits? To me, our reputation. I am elected by the people, not special interests. If someone paid $100, 000 for me I would undoubtedly win, but I could not get away from the special interest source of that much money.

I have never received party help, but both major parties now give some help. The word is that one of them hopes to overwhelm a few elections, in the above manner, to get rid of the senators with the ‘wrong’ party label. That is extremely offensive, for we do not pay attention to labels as we work together. If we start having a "party line" to toe, the regular citizens will be pushed aside. Limits are a small corrective.

All present senators have abided by limits. I am proud of my colleagues. We have a high level of integrity and trust. How do you restore trust when someone has bought in? I take donations from anyone, have never been told how to vote or been reminded that I had received a contribution. I have never even been asked to trade votes, which I frankly find surprising. We have a deep respect for the process and each other's integrity.

Our famous coach is campaigning this year without special interest contributions. That is impressive and will certainly free him from quite a few strings, as his race requires huge amounts of money. Only a very popular, trusted, person could attempt this.

I add a note about the integrity of lobbyists, which is related to all of the above. They have special interests, not the public, as their clients but the process would soon break down in Nebraska if they acted in any manner like the national scandal. (The worst, to my mind: Abramoff called his Indian clients horrible names when talking for' other clients.)

We have over 100 serious lobbyists and well over 100 more who are occasional. For the most part we can keep it in balance. Business and farm interests are over represented in relation to the public but are appropriate to Nebraska interests. The liquor lobby is the only one that will often ignore public interest and get away with it. Alcohol addiction is greater than all other drug addition combined, but we cannot get a quorum to talk about it. "Supporting" drunk driving is the one that continues to amaze me. Since all of them are at as great a risk as the rest of us of getting killed or injured on the road, I would assume that anything shown to restrict impaired driving would be unanimous. Not.

Many alcohol vendors try to prevent impaired driving. They are embarrassed by operators who are indifferent to it. But the lobby will try to block changes which have been proven to save lives. Incredible. I am encouraged, as the floor has shifted in my five years. Senators are fed up with allowing dangerous actions just to keep selling more product. We have several in the industry who point out they are no longer protecting the bad actors, and the good actors are ready to help remove the "black eye."

Limit your spending!

Lowen