I don’t know much about Kamal Jain‘s campaign for State Auditor, other than that he is running in the Republican primary against the odds-on favorite, former Turnpike Authority board member (and BMGer) Mary Z. Connaughton.
But I have to say that I found this dispatch from the MA Office of Campaign and Political finance extremely amusing (email, no link).
Three candidates for statewide office whose opponents have agreed to statutory spending limits for the upcoming primary campaign have filed the required statements declaring the maximum amounts their campaigns will spend…. Such statements are required from candidates who declined to abide by statutory spending limits by the June 1 deadline. Though they did not agree to the limits, these candidates are still required to declare a self-imposed spending cap if they are opposed by candidates who have agreed to limit spending….
· Glodis: $1,300,000. The limits of Glodis’ two primary opponents, Suzanne Bump and Michael Lake, now increase to $1.3 million from their previous statutory limit of $375,000.
· Grossman: $3,500,000. The limit of Grossman’s primary opponent, Stephen Murphy, now increases to $3.5 million from his previous statutory limit of $375,000.
· Jain: $26,930,143,000. The limit of his primary opponent, Mary Connaughton, now increases to $26,930,143,000 from her previous statutory limit of $375,000.
That’s right. In an exceptional show of self-restraint, Kamal Jain has declared that he will not spend any more than about $27 billion in his campaign for Auditor.
I don’t know whether the number Jain selected has any particular significance, nor do I know the motivation behind Jain’s selection of what does appear to be a rather optimistic fundraising goal. I have asked his campaign for comment and will report back if I hear anything.
Personally, I am not a huge fan of what seem to me artificial spending caps on political races, so I find Jain’s move, which appears to be an attempt to make spending limits look silly, to be quite funny. What is your reaction?
…he also finds it funny, but he’s laughing AT us and not with us. Sure artificial spending caps on political races are silly…but I would bet David that you and I would like a practical, workable solution that would replace the “pay to play” system we now have. Not Jain…given his libertarian background, I’m sure he’s very comfortable with as much unregulated money from all sources flowing into the system.
But Libertarians tend to be absolutists on the first amendment. MA Libertarians, in particular, have always been critical of public funding for campaigns. The Thoreauvian principle is that it’s wrong to force people to pay for politicians that they do not support and views that they find abhorrent.
. .. or $3.5 million to run for Treasurer?
I’m sure they will both tell us that they are uniquely qualified to spend the taxpayers money efficiently.
When you already have $800K in the bank.
<
p>Also, it helps to be able to spend a lot when you need to convince the voting public that the D next to your name actually means something
I googled that number, and the only other appearance is that it is the FY10 Massachusetts State Budget (General Appropriations) number as reported on this document:
<
p>http://www.google.com/url?sa=t…
<
p>It seems a little too coincidental to be a coincidence.
Hat-tip to the person who guessed the amount was the FY2010 Massachusetts state budget — just the GAA, none of the off-budget spending.
<
p>Looking across the 6 campaigns for Auditor, mine is the only one with the sole purpose of empowering the people to see how their government operates and get access to the information and tools necessary for better government with greater civic engagement. If we were to raise and spend $27 billion, the real winners would be the people of Massachusetts.
<
p>It will not take that much money to accomplish our goals. $26,930,143,000 is the size of the official FY2010 Massachusetts state government budget, but even that is not what state government total spending will be. This amount only represents about half of what total spending will be for the fiscal year which ends on June 30, 2010.
<
p>All told, our state government will have spent approximately $52 billion – $1 BILLION PER WEEK. This is total spending, and it is a truly enormous amount for a state of 6.2 million people. FY2011 spending will be about the same. We’re likely to see off-budget spending expand to near 50% of total spending.
<
p>There are those who argue that there is some double-counting in there due to transfers, and I respond by saying that misses the point of transparency entirely. And for anyone who suggests that there is little or no fat in state spending, I respond by saying that there is more than ample evidence to the contrary of massive amounts of waste, fraud, abuse and general inefficiency.
<
p>My purpose in specifying this amount as my primary spending limit was to draw attention to state government spending, not state campaign finance law. However, I do not support the use of taxpayer dollars to fund campaigns, as it means that the people’s money could go to support candidates they do not and would not support.
<
p>For the record, I am the ONLY candidate for State Auditor from any party who has a vision and a plan for enhancing democracy and improving civic engagement through Total Transparency. Every other candidate for Auditor who speaks of “transparency” says that they will tell the people what is going on, and yet offers no way in which the people can check the veracity of those statements. The people must have a way to audit their government and their Auditor. That requires Total Transparency, and Total Transparency requires:
<
p>Financial Transparency: Every Dollar and Every Dime of government spending, down to the transaction level, must be available to all of the people, in an easy to understand format and at no charge. Every RFP, every response, every contract and every invoice. The total of the details presented must add up to the amount of total spending as indicated in each year’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
<
p>Within 6 months of my taking office, the Auditor’s office will launch a free-to-use, easy-to-navigate and easy-to-understand online transparency portal that will be open to the public. The underlying data will also be made available to anyone who wants it. Newspapers, think-tanks, bloggers and other interested parties will no longer have to pay for this information as they do today.
<
p>Legislative Transparency: Readily available technology must be implemented to allow every vote by every legislator to be reported in near real time, and it must correspond to the reported results on each bill acted upon by the legislature. I will recommend legislation requiring all proposed legislation be made publicly available online for a minimum period of time before a vote is taken, giving the people time to read and understand what is being voted on and to contact their legislators prior to the vote.
<
p>The people must have access to the bill and the voting record before the Governor has an opportunity to sign or veto legislation. It is wrong for the Legislature to sell voting data to anyone; it is and should be a matter of written public record. Every vote by every legislator, every time.
<
p>Procedural Transparency: All contract award decisions; all hiring, termination and promotion decisions; all outsourcing and privatization decisions must be made public except in the case where legal or security constraints would be compromised.
<
p>Other candidates for Auditor promise to go behind the curtain and tell the people what is going on back there. I pledge to tear down the curtain and invite the people to come in and see for themselves. My campaign is not about furthering any particular party, ideology or agenda, but rather, to promote democracy and restore citizen engagement with, and oversight of, their government. This can only happen with Total Transparency.
<
p>If we could find billions of dollars that was being wasted or spent inappropriately, and we could make that money available to help those truly in need — would you want that? If we could end cronyism that lines the pockets of those with connections — would you want that?
<
p>As a society, we cannot have an honest discussion about appropriate levels of funding for programs until we can have an honest discussion about actual spending. Every dollar, every dime.
<
p>If you believe there are acceptable levels of waste, fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars…I am not your candidate for Auditor. If you believe a lack of accountability to the people is acceptable…I am not your candidate for Auditor.
<
p>Please let me know if you have any questions, or would care to discuss any of my initiatives and plans.
<
p>Sincerely,
<
p>Kamal Jain
Candidate for Massachusetts State Auditor
info@kamaljain.com