This March, Claremont voters will decide whether to adopt a new kind of campaign reform package. This reform package, entitled Measure A, will prevent conflicts of interest in City Hall. While there is a lot of rhetoric around Measure A, it is a step in the right direction.

Money rules American politics, and Measure A is a concerted effort by regular citizens to change that. Any Claremont student who agrees that America needs reform should act on their conscience and vote for Measure A. The measure is a proactive law that ought to be applied everywhere in the United States, and it is up to us to give it a kick-start here in Claremont.

Measure A, or the "City of Claremont Taxpayer Protection Amendment of 2000 (TPA)," prevents a conflict of interest between public officials and those who do business with them. Specifically, the TPA prohibits a public official from receiving campaign donations, gifts or employment from anyone benefiting from the official’s discretionary actions (i.e. awarding public funds or assets such as a city contract, special tax break, or land zoning change). The TPA forces a public official to represent the interests of the public and not the special interests of a potential contributor.

Measure A is a very unique law. I know because I helped collect signatures to get it on the ballot here in Claremont. Measure A (along with similar measures that voters already passed in San Francisco, Santa Monica and Vista, California) is one of the strongest forms of campaign finance reform in the country.

In addition, it is sponsored by The Oaks Project, a group working to increase citizens’ participation and voice in the political process. All 4,400 signatures necessary to put Measure A on the Claremont ballot were collected by Oaks Project volunteers.

If you are a student at the Claremont Colleges eager to change the world, why not start before you graduate and vote for Measure A in March?

You may have heard people like Senator John McCain talk about campaign finance reform, yet most people only have an inkling of what it means. When billions of dollars pour into our representatives’ coffers each year, how can we say our government is trustworthy? Often politicians receive money in huge chunks from special interests in the form of "soft money." In other countries this type of campaign funding is considered corrupt and illegal.

While no one is claiming that Claremont engages in this type of corruption, would not Claremont be a good place to start reform? After the debacle over the killing of Irving Landrum by Claremont police officers and the sectarian way the city has helped the Colleges plan their razing of the BFS, we need some accountability in city hall. Political decisions in Claremont directly affect us as students – the proposed expansion of the Village and plans for the Keck Graduate Institute are just two of the obvious examples. It is time that students get involved in city issues more, even if it just means showing up at the ballot boxes in March.

A few people, mostly city officials, have chosen to criticize Measure A. "Thanks," they say, "but we do not need reform in our little town." This is the most malarky I have heard in a long time. They say that there are already "conflict of interest" laws in Claremont. Then why is it that when I attended meetings of the Planning Commission about the Keck Graduate Institute several of the commissioners were Claremont College employees and yet they refused to recuse themselves? At the time I was certain that if the planning commissioners had not been intimately tied to the Claremont Colleges through their jobs, the results of the planning process would have been distinctly different. When a city commissioner works for the Colleges as well, how can you expect him or her to make any decision that goes against the intentions of the Colleges?

I think that the City should have constructive relationships with the Colleges and other businesses in town, but there should also be limits to that relationship. However you feel about the issues in Claremont, surely you would agree that there should not be this kind of conspiring going on.

There have been claims that Measure A is unconstitutional and that it will discourage people from volunteering for city positions. Contrary to these wild claims, Measure A is constitutional. Opponents cite a San Diego court decision that was overturned by a higher court. While the precedent in this country is that money is equal to speech, it is perfectly legal for regular citizens to pass an ordinance that prevents public officials from making decisions in order to get a benefit. Measure A in no way violates a person’s free speech rights by preventing a person from giving gifts to public officials. Rather, it prevents the officials from making decisions in order to receive those gifts. I am sure anyone will agree that citizens can have some control over what decisions their public leaders make.

There will never be an empty slot in the Claremont city government. If someone wants to volunteer for office, they will just have to be sure they do not violate the rules of Measure A. It is pretty simple; you just do not take money from someone who wants to influence your decisions, before or after you make those decisions. There are thousands of people in Claremont from whom someone could garner campaign funds without a conflict of interest.

Simply put, all the criticism of Measure A is a smokescreen. Look at the opponents: the Chamber of Commerce and the City Council. At the same time, California Common Cause, the Sierra Club, and the California Public Interest Research Group all support Measure A. When Measure A passed in San Francisco, the local Republican Party, the local Democratic Party, and the local Green Party supported it. Those public officials who choose to criticize it do not know what is good for them.

If we as students want to make a difference, we need to start here in Claremont.