Maybe Chicago & the nation are ready for reform

Introduction

Even though this essay only addresses Chicago’s mayor election process, much here can be applied to other locales and even to the USA in its entirety.

Chicago is undergoing the process of selecting candidates to replace Mayor Daley, who decided against seeking reelection. Each candidate who wants to get on the ballot has to obtain the signatures of 12,500 voters before November 22. And of course, any signatures that are gathered can be challenged before the Chicago Election Board, which is usually done by trained and highly paid professionals. And that takes money. Not to mention the money or clout to have people hit the streets to collect those signatures in the first place.

Naturally, Mayor Daley timed his announcement to give as little time as possible for (say) any independents to gather signatures.

What I’d like to see in Chicago:

If someone wants to run for Mayor, they should pay a fee to have their name listed on a website as a declared candidate. A nominal amount of $1,000 should serve to set the bar high, but not too high. On this website, each candidate may give his pitch. He can list a personal biography and the names of those who endorse him; he can list his platform; he can even list (if he has one) a written contract which (I believe) all candidates should offer. [More info on these contracts had been posted earlier on this blog.]

But there “ought to be a law,” that no other form of campaigning be allowed except personal appearances. Only the material on this website, and not any radio or TV or other media advertising, would be permitted. NET EFFECT: The obscene cost of campaigning goes down, and the elected official doesn’t end up owing favors to deep-pocketed contributors.

Voters could go to their polling places on February 22 or else vote by absentee ballot or even by means of secure electronic voting from their home computers. They could choose from any candidate on the ballot which means, any candidate who had paid the $1,000 self-nomination fee. Actually, they would cast two votes: The first for the candidate they’d prefer, the second for any other candidate should their preferred candidate not win or make the runoff.

If no candidate were to obtain more than 50% of the vote, then there would be a run-off election between the top two on April 5, which is the current law in Chicago.

Electoral Contract Specific to Chicago’s Mayor

Elsewhere on this blog, I detail what a US president’s electoral contract could look like. But this might appear on a mayoral candidate’s contract:

[As for Chicago’s mayor having a contract, there is an alternative enforcement mechanism which could be included in the contract, since impeachment isn’t an option.] “If an opinion poll of registered Chicago voters conducted by the respected polling firm of _______ would ever show my approval rating dipping below 50%, I would have to either resign immediately or forfeit a ‘bond’ in the amount of _____ held in trust by ______,”

Other possible mayoral campaign promises:

ONE: If elected, I would have no part in raising taxes or fees for four years.

TWO: If elected, I would have no part in granting public money for the benefit of privately owned corporations, especially sports franchises, especially in regard to construction of new stadia.

THREE: Discretionary money in TIF accounts, controlled by the mayor, would all be spent as follows: 50% for school improvement (not for any salary increases), 30% for (other) infrastructure improvements, and 20% to hire more police officers.

FOUR:  If the day comes when the city council consists of at least 50% independent aldermen not aligned with any political party, I would seek majority approval by such Council for legislation, that being sufficient for enactment. Also, I would step aside and allow the Council to select its own presiding officer and, in all respects, operate independently of the mayor.

Free Speech Issues

Some might squawk that disallowing paid political advertising violates the free speech rights of corporations and unions (granted by a recent SCOTUS ruling). However, I look to the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution for salvation here:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

I maintain that one of those “others retained by the people” must include a right not to have our electoral outcomes go to him whom spends the most. And a right not to be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of “free” speech exercised by the wealthy purchasers of air time.

How to force reform

Do you think the established players will allow for reform? That they’ll just give us a level playing field? There are ways to force the issue, but first we have to overcome our sense of powerlessness. We are powerful, but we just have to make up our minds. Locally, in a city like Chicago, we can force reform by (quite easily) determining the financial interests of our elected officials and their backers. And then boycott them

At the national level, I suggest a mass boycott, including withdrawal of savings and checking accounts, from the seven largest US banks. The accounts can be “transferred” to much smaller but equally safe financial institutions. If we can inspire a 10% loss of the Big Banks’ customer base, believe me: The Powers-that-Be will come crawling to us on their hands and knees, asking to be “allowed” to implement the reforms we seek. We will tell them to jump, and they will ask “How high?”

Let’s make this happen.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Personally? I believe Mayor Daley was TOLD not to seek reelection. But…that’s another story.”