It's official: Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich has defeated convicted felon and long-time Senator Ted Stevens for Alaska's other Senate seat, making him the next Junior Senator from Alaska.

Politico shared this.

With this victory, Democrat Mark Begich has defeated one of the giants in the U.S. Senate by a 3,724-vote margin, a stunning end to a 40-year Senate career marred by Stevens' conviction on corruption charges a week before the election.

A real victory in the fight towards ending corruption in Congress! Thank you good people of Alaska.

Amidst all of the energy and fervor around the 2008 elections, one thing remained the same: money wins elections. Once again, the candidates with the most money were able to take home victory in not just the Presidential race (Obama outspent McCain two-to-one) but in Senate and Congressional races around the country. The Center for Responsible Politics released numbers last week demonstrating that no matter how much enthusiasm a candidate might have, it all comes down to money in the end.

As CRP's Executive Director Sheila Krumholz revealed, in 9 out of 10 contests the best-funded candidates won their races. This matches a trend that is familiar to those tracking the connection between money and politics:

Continuing a trend seen election cycle after election cycle, the biggest spender was victorious in 397 of 426 decided House races and 30 of 32 settled Senate races. On Election Day 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.

Despite Congressional approval ratings dangling in the single digits, 95% of House incumbents won re-election and 93% of Senate incumbents were welcomed back by voters. How did they do it? Money.

These financial shackles that require massive amounts of money just to mount a viable candidacy for the House or Senate are dangerous in two ways:

(1) it keeps out regular Americans from ever being able to run for office because they can't raise enough money to stay competitive.

(2) it in debts winning candidates to their benefactors. As Krumholz says, "The politicians who were just elected potentially owe their campaign contributors billions of dollars for helping them win." How they repay them is part of the problem.

Here are some figures to chew on:

- average cost of winning a House seat in 2008: $1.1 million

- average cost of winning a Senate seat in 2008: $6.5 million.

- 1 in 4: number of House seats where incumbent faced no financial opposition.

- CRP's estimated total cost of U.S. elections this year: $5.3 billion making it the most expensive election in American history.

- 93%: House races where top-spender won.

- 94%: Senate races where top-spender won.

My first reaction to this was, "What could we fund with $5.3 billion?" Healthcare? A more efficient and stringent regulatory system? Education? But then I realized, Johnson & Johnson spent $5.1 billion on selling the world soaps, shampoos and toothpastes in just the third quarter of 2008. McDonald's spent more than $689 million selling the world hamburgers and french fries in 2006. And Proctor and Gamble spent over $7.9 billion selling the world laundry detergent, Pampers, batteries and Pringles. After seeing those numbers, am I really that upset that we spend $5 billion "selling" tomorrow's democracy to the people? I don't know.

Do you feel we spend too much on electing our leaders or not enough?

The Chief Technology Officer in Obama's administration will be a central piece in his cabinet. As technology becomes more connected to everything from healthcare (putting records online so that they are more accessible) to the economy and environment (green collar jobs through innovation), the CTO could be intricately involved with every department in the administration. And he or she will be handling some of the most important issues directly impacting government transparency such as internet access/broadband growth, copyright policy and energy innovation.

The CTO cannot just be a "getting stuff done" workhorse, but also someone who understands the policy behind issues like net neutrality and DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Can you imagine Obama hiring a CTO who doesn't know how to operate a Blackberry? Or doesn't use the internet for anything but email? There would be an uproar in Silicon Valley. So why not start the process by asking the people what the most important issues are facing us from a technological perspective? Done.

The Obama team has put up a new site letting "we the people" submit and rank the most important issues facing the incoming Chief Tech Officer. Each user receives 10 votes to spread as they wish across a host of user-submitted issues. Honestly, I had a hard time choosing how to divy up my votes and ended up changing them a few times. I liked ALL of the ideas -- from supporting Net Neutrality to having a live online bidding process for government contracts.

The point here is to show what the public thinks the biggest issues facing us technologically and to do it in an open and transparent way. Kudos to the Obama camp for launching this. I feel confident that they're listening and will follow through on what the public says.

The fine folks over at Public Campaign have put together a great summary of the progress being made in pushing publicly funded elections at the state and local level. Often called Voter Owned Elections, clean elections are one way to take big money out of the campaign process. The report shows public support of clean elections for local and state races. This is helping to build a bottom-up movement dedicated to changing the way big money impacts not just local elections but eventually federal as well.

Voters given the choice chose Clean Elections candidates, demonstrating strong support at the local level for the system. That's vital because Clean Elections candidates typically meet voters one on one to discuss the issues. They must get a set number of modest donations-usually five dollars-from people in their community in order to qualify for a grant to pay for their campaign. Once qualified, the Clean Elections candidate adheres to strict spending limits and stops accepting private contributions. That means the donation from the teacher is as important as the one from the corporate CEO.

Not too shabby. Checkout their full results page for more info.

President Elect Obama, during his campaign, pledged for sweeping ethics reform under his administration. Now, as he mounts his transition team he has created “the strictest, the most far-reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history.” So says John Podesta in today's New York Times article.

Obama and his co-chair of his transition team Jon Podesta are abiding by the same principles that guided his campaign for more than two years. What's important here is that the President-elect is taking the necessary steps to clean up the way Washington works by drawing a line between special interests and the government.

Under the rules announced by Mr. Podesta, federal lobbyists will not be allowed to raise money for the transition, nor continue lobbying while working in the transition. In addition, he said that someone who became a lobbyist after being involved in the transition would be prohibited from lobbying the administration on related matters for 12 months.

The goal in this move appears to be two-fold:

(1) to attract those to government who's premier purpose is to serve the public interest, not make a profit.

(2) to earn the trust of the public by slowing the "revolving door" between government and the private sector. This administration understands that restoring trust in government is the most important element in developing sound policies, and for that we applaud them.

Some say this move comes at great expense. It will prevent people with much knowledge and experience on key issues like healthcare and global warming from serving immediately. I would argue that its a worthy expense. As the Brookings Institution's Thomas Mann said, "That is a real cost but it is more than balanced by the strong signal sent by the President-elect. He aspires to attract to government able individuals whose highest priority is to serve the public interest. This is a very constructive step in that direction."

Yet, it's not possible to cut every cord strung between government and the private sector. Just today one of Senator Obama's advisors was reportedly on the board a defense contractor. Former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn is currently serving as Chairman of Public Responsibilities at General Electric, a company that has received $8.8 billion in over 280 defense department contracts. Obama's transition team had no comment about weather this was a conflict of interest, but did say that Nunn's role was "informal" and that he was considered an "outside adviser." Whether or not this is seen as conflict of interest need not supersede the fact that the only reason it is considered such is because of these new self-imposed ethics rules the Obama transition team have adopted.

We do hope that these new rules are obeyed and not bent to accommodate the desired needs of the transition team. After all, the problem with self-imposed rules is that the only one enforcing them is the one who needs them.

Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight believes that the remaining votes to be counted in the Begich-Stevens Alaska Senate race will favor Begich. The former Democratic mayor of Anchorage remains 3,500 votes behind newly convicted felon Ted Stevens and may end up passing him with the remaining early voting ballots yet to be counted. And there's no reason not to trust Nate's analysis -- his prediction for an Obama victory was dead on.

If you want to help get him out, checkout our petition, "Thanks for the memories, Ted Stevens."

Lessig has an article in this month's Stanford Magazine highlighting what happens when the engine of democracy (specifically Congress) contains a flaw. And that flaw is the "first problem." From the end of the article:

The flaw at the core of the People's House is dependency. Think of the dynamic of the dependency of an alcoholic. The alcoholic may be losing his family, his job, his liver, but we all know he will not solve any of those problems unless he solves his alcoholism first. It's not that alcoholism is the most important problem; it's just the first problem he needs to solve if he is to solve the rest.

There is no end to the problems that we as a nation face—from global warming to Iraq to the economy to media reform to education to broadband growth, even to copyright—but we will not address these problems sensibly until we solve this first problem: our own alcoholism, our own dependency on the way money has corrupted this government.

Corruption, lack of public trust and transparency, and a failure to get the easy public policy decisions wrong all contribute to this flaw.

Senator Barack Obama also mentioned recently what he thought was "flawed" about the Constitution.

This brings up an interesting point: Has calling to question elements of our own Constitution become improper and frowned upon? Are we willing to accept any potential inequalities or, "flaws" in it or do we treat it as the Gospel? The fact that we've amended it twenty-eight times shows that we're willing to add necessary changes calibrating it to a society that is constantly progressing and moving forward.

What will the next amendment be, you might ask. We're hoping that it has something to do with corruption -- it's oldest foe. More from Lessig:

It's not very PC to say, but let's say it: they failed. Many who went to government were drawn for the most venal of reasons. Corruption was at the center of government throughout the country for most of our history—much worse than anything we've ever seen. Daniel Webster, who served in Congress when Congress was considering whether or how to regulate the Bank of the United States, was paid by the Bank of the United States. He wrote to the Bank: “If it be wished that my relation to the bank be continued, it may be well to send me the usual retainers.”

After more than two-hundred years its time to make the Constitution work for the people again. Its time to close the loopholes and begin to tackle this new challenge. Fixing this flaw is the first problem. If we can solve this first problem, we can solve the many others that face us as nation, be it global warming or healthcare.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was found guilty on seven counts of corruption this week, but he's refusing to step down--even though politicians from both sides of the aisle have called on him to resign. Yesterday we sent an email to friends and supporters of Change Congress, asking folks to watch our "Farewell, Ted" video and sign on to a petition demanding that Senate leaders remove him from office.

Here's the text of the email, with links:

Dear Supporter,

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was found guilty on seven counts of corruption this week[1], but, he's refusing to step down. Politicians from both sides of the aisle, including Barack Obama and John McCain, have called on him to resign. It's time to add your voice to the mix.

Click here to watch our video, "Farewell, Ted." Then sign our petition calling for Senate leaders to remove him from the Senate:

http://change-congress.org/ted

The petition reads:

"He has broken our trust. It's time to let another Alaskan step up and represent the Last Frontier state. For this reason, we are calling on you to remove him from the Senate. Joining with both presidential candidates Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain we are requesting that you not allow a convicted felon continue to serve as a U.S. Senator."

Now that Ted Stevens has been convicted of corruption, he has no place in the Senate. The American people demand leaders who work for us, rather than abusing our trust. If Stevens does not resign, he must be removed from office.

We'll deliver copies of this petition to leaders in the Senate, including Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), whether or not Stevens is still serving next week. Help us send the message that corruption in the Senate will not be tolerated.

Ted Stevens received all kinds of gifts that he didn't disclose: A $1,000 sled dog. A $3,200 handmade stained glass window. A $2,695 massage chair. Not to mention $250,000 in labor and materials for Stevens' vacation home from Veco Corporation, an oil-field service company.[2] All this for keeping his friends at Veco in mind when he went to Washington and allocated over $88 million in earmarks to just one bill that came before Congress. [3]

Our Senators should not be for sale, whether for the price of a massage chair, a vacation home, or anything else. Click the link below to watch our video, and then help us say "Farewell, Ted" once and for all.

http://change-congress.org/ted

Thank you for holding our leaders accountable!

Japhet, Stephanie, Monica and the Change Congress Team

Sources:

1. "Stevens guilty on all counts, campaign to continue," Associated Press, Oct. 28, 2008. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5je6Pw1sViz24JRo9F0PNhoqMtzTwD94349103

2. "Ted Stevens got a massage chair, dog, prosecutors claim," Miami Herald, Oct. 28, 2008. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/744853.html

3. "Scandal-infested Stevens doles out earmarks for rodent control," Think Progress, Dec. 18, 2007 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/18/stevens-rodent-control/

To all our San Francisco friends, don't forget the party tonight hosted by the Stanford Law School for Professor Lessig's new book Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy.

Here's the details:

When: Wed Oct 29, 2008

Where: W Hotel SF - 181 Third Street, SF

Free food and drinks for everyone.

Reception is at 6:30pm

Program is at 7pm.

Contact Elaine Adolfo at a2lessig@pobox.com with any questions.