Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2006 | 7:39 a.m.
It's the day after the primary, and most of the chatter revolves around who won, who lost and why.
But as I write this, long before the polls closed Tuesday, some lessons of this year's primary campaign already are clear. That reform of the process is needed is not open for debate; it's how to accomplish the revamping while maximizing the benefit.
And, most important, how do we get the people who generally like the current system - i.e., incumbents - to pass laws that may level the playing field? Or, at least, decrease the slant.
We can try invective and opprobrium. But too many of them don't read or don't care what's said. We can try shaming them. But too many are bereft of shame. And we can try pleading with them to do the right thing. But too many decide what's right by what their friends, consultants or donors think.
So there's only one foolproof solution: Present them with ideas so powerful, they cannot ignore them. Here are three as a start:
Move the primary: Many states conduct their primaries in the spring - March, May, June. Compressing the general election into a couple or three months greatly favors the moneyed, or even anointed, candidates who don't have to worry about recovering from a cash-depleting primary.
Filing for office should last for a month at the beginning of the campaign year. Then let the parties decide their nominees by the end of spring, and the entire general election campaign does not have to be waged during the summer. Candidates who have had spirited but debilitating primaries would have time to recover and prepare for the general campaign against the other party's nominee.
There have been proposals to move the primary back a few months. But they have been entombed in the Carson City cemetery and the latest date - Aug. 15 - was the product of a brainless compromise. Why have an election during the heat of summer, just as parents are enjoying their last weeks of freedom before school starts and single folks are off enjoying a vacation?
This is a simple solution and will produce better, more vetted candidates.
Really. I hope.
Immediate disclosure of contributions: The voters should know immediately if a casino company or developer is bundling hundreds of thousands of dollars to a candidate. They should know tout de suite if a powerful community figure is loading up on one contender. They should know if a hopeful who is preaching family values is taking money from the porn industry. (Porn was a big issue this year.) The Internet makes this possible.
And, to his credit, state Sen. Randolph Townsend has a bill in the hopper to make disclosure on the Internet within 24 or 48 hours mandatory. I hope he follows through with this long overdue idea, even over inevitable opposition from his old friend, Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio.
And why not include expenses, too? They should all be disclosed and itemized as soon as the expenses are made. What are the arguments against this? Not one. The software is readily available and all you need is someone with rudimentary data entry skills.
If this fails to pass, it will be for one reason and one reason only: The ruling class wants to hide its donors for as long as it can - and candidates now have a seven-month grace period.
Minimal job requirements: If some of these jobs must remain elected - and some probably shouldn't - there should be minimum requirements to file. Sheriff comes to mind - many states have prerequisites for anyone to be the county's top cop.
But sheriff is just one of the many offices where this election highlighted the need for threshold qualifications for state treasurer, public administrator and recorder, to name a few.
This is not rocket science. But it may seem easier to put a man on Mars than ask incumbents to reform the system designed to keep them in office. And unless the public gets engaged - you see how many did Tuesday - nothing will ever change.
archive
