presents
Voter’s Edge California
Get the facts before you vote.
Voter’s Edge California
Go to top
Brought to you by
MapLight
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
KPBS Voters Guide@KPBSNews
June 5, 2018 — California Primary Election
United States
June 5, 2018 —California Primary Election

United States Senate — ” Alison Hartson, Candidate for Senator

Photo of Alison Hartson

Alison Hartson

Democratic
National Political Director
146,909 votes (2.2%)
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My List'.
For more in-depth information on this candidate, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.
Candidate has provided information.
Thank candidate for sharing their information on Voter’s Edge.
  • End political corruption. Save democracy. Get big money out of Politics.
  • Medicare for All
  • College for All
Profession:Nation Director of nonprofit; high school teacher
National Director, Wolf-PAC (2015–2017)
Teacher, Garden Grove Unified School District (2005–2015)
California State University Long Beach B.A., English Education with a minor in Sociology (2005)
Director of CA ballot initiative: overturn ban on publicly funded elections, Americans Take Action (2015–2016)
Volunteer California State Director, Wolf-PAC (2013–2015)
Volunteer to get money out of politics with direct action, 99Rise (2013–2014)
Volunteer to get transparency for political contributions, California Clean Money Campaign (2013–2013)
Volunteer for Orphanages in Kenya, Global Volunteer Network (2007–2007)

Public high school teacher for 10 years. Designed and taught intervention program for at-risk youth. National Director of political non-profit working to end political corruption by getting money out of politics.

 

Alison Hartson has spent her life in the service of others. For ten years she served as a public high school teacher in Garden Grove, CA serving low-income families who are primarily 1st and 2nd generation students from Mexico. She taught English and designed and taught an intervention program for students at risk of not graduating.

 

Alison saw up close how the corrupting influence of money in politics has created two realities in this country: one for the rich, and one for everyone else. Seeing this inspired her to spend 2013-2017 with Wolf-PAC, an organization dedicated to ending political corruption via a U.S. Constitutional Amendment tol overturn Citizens United and related cases. As the California State Director, Alison successfully led the passage of the California measure through the state legislature by organizing thousands of volunteers. She went on to be a National Director of Wolf-PAC where she was responsible for the long term strategic and operational planning of staff, 30,000+ volunteers, legislation, programs, expansion, and execution of its mission where they have now passed the measure in five states and have volunteer teams in almost all 50 states.

 

Alison has a proven track record of leadership and winning the causes she fights for, and you know she will fight for you because she has vowed not to take a dime of corporate nor PAC money. At this difficult moment for our nation, she is stepping up to provide a courageous voice for the working people of California.

Total money raised: $437,269

Top contributors that gave money to support the candidate, by organization:

1
Employees of Levin Papantonio
$10,600
2
Employees of Some Character
$5,400
2
Employees of Tyt
$5,400
3
Employees of University of California
$3,134
4
Employees of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
$2,700
4
Employees of United States Department of Homeland Security
$2,700

By State:

California 57.76%
Florida 6.83%
Massachusetts 5.70%
New York 4.70%
Other 25.01%
57.76%25.01%

By Size:

Large contributions (30.78%)
Small contributions (69.22%)
30.78%69.22%

By Type:

From organizations (0.07%)
From individuals (99.93%)
99.93%
Source: MapLight analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission.

Oligarchical Rule is Human Nature: We must save ourselves from ourselves

Summary

Changing the way elections are funded can help to solve our greed and lust for power.

Originally published November 29, 2017 

Among today’s hot topics from the 2016 presidential campaign is campaign finance reform. The list of monikers continues to grow: “Ending the corrupting influence of money in our political system,” “Getting money out of politics,” “Ending crony-capitalism.” Such a trend reflects the growing public awareness (75% to 97%, depending upon the poll) that our system is fundamentally broken in this specific way and people from across the political spectrum are fed up. Given these numbers, it is in fact quite likely that you, the reader, have a sense that our representative democracy is turning (or has already turned) into a plutocratic-oligarchy. But I’m not writing to tell you what you already know. I’m here to tell you about a solution.

As a former high-school teacher, I often taught my students to practice causal-analysis in order to determine how to solve a problem. I taught them that if one does not correctly identify the root cause of a problem, any perceived solutions will likely be misguided and, therefore, counterproductive. Spend a little more time to determine the root cause, and you will actually solve problems faster, not to mention actually solve them. Thankfully, there are countless scholars out there, from Professor Larry Lessig, author of Republic Lost, to Professor Peter Matthews, author of Dollar Democracy, who have done extensive research to prove what you and I have been sensing for quite some time: we are losing our democracy.

The reason that we are dealing with a crippling and growing imbalance of wealth and power in the United States is that the institutions with power are compelled in a number of ways to serve, not the public interest, but the private interests that can influence them with the most money. Public schools, prisons, police, firemen, military, healthcare — all of these are being systematically purchased and thus disseminated by powerful people for powerful people, without any interest (and often with a direct financial disincentive) toward helping anyone else. Not only is this terribly unrepresentative of the concerns and needs of the citizenry, it is also a breeding ground for such nefarious pursuits as corporate welfare, tax evasion, and monopolies that destroy small businesses. The entire phenomenon of these occurrences are closely related, and it is all unacceptable.

Studies show that wealth distribution in America is more extreme than any time since the Great Depression. One only has to Google the resources of monied interests gearing up for the 2016 election, which is still a year away, to see just an inkling of the problem. A 2014 Princeton study showed that over the course of 1800 policies since 1980, the “public will” had zero correlation to the policies implemented by our politicians, while there was a direct correlation between the richest one percent of the country and their preferred policies being adopted into law. Under no measure, technical or functional or visceral, is this a democracy. So how did we get here? How did we arrive at a system where laws are so heavily skewed to favor the extreme minority over the vast majority, even though everyone has a vote? The two-word answer is as simple as it is disconcerting: human nature.

If someone does something to help me, I will naturally feel inclined to help them in return, especially if this cycle leads them to helping me once again. We spend much of our lives thinking idealistically, and much of the rest of the time thinking pragmatically (or selfishly, sometimes), and the idea of helping others in order to help ourselves lies at the nexus of the two. Unfortunately, politicians do not rise above this basic human instinct.

This natural tendency to become corrupted by our own self-serving interests is what leads to political dysfunction and it begins with the way our campaigns are funded. The process can be summarized as follows: candidates raise money as they run for office (as much money as possible), then get elected, then write and vote for laws, then raise money again for their next election. If they don’t please the people who give them the bulk of their campaign money, they usually don’t win their next election; therefore, knowing this reality, they are beholden toward using their time in office to curry favor with those who are most likely to extend their careers with a future donation. What do people with a lot of money and power want in return for their donations? To keep their money and power, usually, which means to keep their potential competition (i.e. us) from getting their money and power as a result of would-be beneficial public policy. Institutions (healthcare, education, prisons) are structured by their laws, which are written by legislators, who seek campaign money. Period.

What this means is that in order to solve the problems in our country that you and I care about most, we have all got to talk about the boring details of how we finance our political candidate’s campaigns. As long as we can remember that those boring details end up ruining lives and our democratic republic as we know it, perhaps we can remain interested in this rather boring and opaque subject compared to the pet political issues we all have (mine include education, net neutrality and the environment, among others). Thus, despite its lack of flashiness, this is the most important issue on which to concentrate. It is the door that needs to be opened before any further progress can be made because everything that comes after that is what builds the house we live in: democracy or oligarchy.

In order to move forward, what we need to remember is that we do have the power to fix this. Voting is power. Knowledge is power. And these are powers that we cede to others with interests that may not match ours if we get so frustrated by the system that we decline to vote or learn about the issues we’re voting on. So, what you need to know is this: campaign finance is simply the way in which candidates fund their elections, be it for their staff or for expenses like ads, billboards, flyers, plane tickets, and so forth. The question we need to address is: How should campaigns be funded?

The reality is that there is more than one answer. We should and must overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision (and related cases), instill strong transparency laws, limit campaign contributions and expenditures, and fund our elections publicly. And we must employ a combination of these plans. The details of these solutions are a lot to cover, each of which deserves their own article, but the following is easy to digest:

· Transparency has been proven to cause the wealthy to reduce their contributions at least by a little, and to at least spread out their contributions so they don’t look like they’re favoring one politician over another. Transparency alone, however, simply serves to expose the problem, not fix it. Candidates who propose transparency as an answer to this problem are going in the right direction, but not far enough because it is not the root cause of the problem: how we fund our campaigns.

· Limits on individual contributions are also helpful, but can be easily circumvented, and thus are also not sufficient to tackle this problem. Limits also have another problem since Citizens United, alongside other Supreme Court decisions (the 2014 McCutcheon vs. FEC decision is one), made placing limits on some contributions and all expenditures unconstitutional, which means that a true fix would require a reversal of these decisions.

· The option of publicly funded elections directly deals with how campaigns are funded, thus providing a real solution to the root cause. Such elections level the playing field and allow average people like you and me to be able to run for office — usually people who share common experiences with us have ideas that relate to our lives more tangibly than the ideas of billionaires.

· Publicly funded elections can incorporate both transparency and caps on contributions and expenditures, even in the wake of Citizens United and McCutcheon.

· Publicly funded elections allow candidates to spend more time with the citizens who will be electing them since they–since we–are the ones funding their campaigns.

Unlike some common stereotypes, most politicians are not terrible people. They are people who want to keep their job and do as much good as possible within the broken system they are forced to operate under. It is up to us to fix that system. Like any other job, politicians work for whoever pays them, which means that they either work for their wealthy donors, or they work for the public. If we want strong transparency laws, and if we want to empower legislators to be able to stand up to Washington, we must change the way their campaigns are funded. If their human nature is to scratch backs in order to get theirs scratched, we must make sure that the citizens are the ones on the other side of that transaction, not the plutocrats. By changing the way elections are funded, we can free our elected officials from the corrupting influence of money in our political system, making elections fair enough that anyone can run for public office, not just millionaires and their allies. This is what publicly funded elections will do for us.

— May 25, 2018 Alison Hartson 2018

 Alison Hartson for U.S. Senate in California is fighting to put people before profit and policy before politics and party.

— May 25, 2018 Alison Hartson 2018

While income for the wealthiest 1% has spiked to historic highs, wages for every day workers have fallen behind. I'm running for U.S. Senate because it's time for Congress to stop playing partisan politics and start passing policies that benefit the rest of us.

Please share this site to help others research their voting choices.

PUBLISHING:PRODUCTION SERVER:PRODUCTION