Blog
Campaign Finance Reform
By Michael Waldman – 02/19/08
As this riveting campaign unfolds, we can easily miss a startling fact: the President of the United States who follows George W. Bush will be Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain. Two liberal (oops, progressive) Democrats or the Republican most willing to stand up to Bush over the first six years of his presidency. To use the word of the moment, that is change. And because of a little-noticed electoral fact, more change may be on the way.
The candidates this fall will be competing to win an electoral bloc that has been the invisible force determining many recent elections. The reform-minded voters who backed Ross Perot in 1992 will once again be the "jump ball" for this election. Call them, to paraphrase our outgoing chief executive, "The Deciders."
The cantankerous energy of the Perot vote may seem distant today, but I remember it vividly. I stood a few yards away from the stage in Little Rock, Arkansas on Election Night, 1992. That night, speaking to 30,000 screaming supporters, president elect Bill Clinton took note of the day's biggest surprise. Ross Perot had received 19 percent of the vote, after it was clear he was flakier than a fresh croissant. Clinton told Perot's voters he heard them, and pledged political reform as an early priority.
Perot is often remembered today as a funny looking little man vowing to "get under the hood" of a broken system. He lent himself easily to Dana Carvey's mimicry, as when he declared that George H.W. Bush had tried to disrupt his daughter's wedding. In fact, Perot waged a sharply substantive campaign. Perot vowed to clean Washington of "foreign lobbyists." He spoke of campaign finance reform. He talked about the ballooning budget deficit—not so much as a matter of economics, but as a metaphor for how government had gotten out of control. And he assailed the pending NAFTA trade agreement. Perot's supporters were overwhelmingly Republicans ready to break with the GOP.
In fact, that's how political change usually happens in America. A part of the governing coalition breaks off. The disaffected bloc backs a third party bid. One of the major parties wins by absorbing the independent force to form a new majority. That's what happened with the Whigs and the Republicans in the 1850s. FDR's Democrats absorbed the third party Progressives of the 1920s, who had been disaffected Republicans. (Harold Ickes, for example, was a Republican before he became FDR's long serving cabinet secretary. His son is a top Clinton strategist.) Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy worked successfully to absorb the George Wallace voters of 1968 into a new Republican majority. Following the pattern, Ross Perot was a disaffected Republican—and his voters were ripe for the plucking after 1992.
Instead, the Democrats failed to win them over. In Clinton's first years, reform didn't happen. Campaign finance and lobbying changes never passed. Deficit reduction took so much political capital that it wound up looking half-hearted. And on trade, Clinton simply disagreed with Perot, passing NAFTA and other deals. The Perot vote, in short, wasn't courted. (I remember urging political reform to a senior official. "What about Perot?" I implored. "Let's hope he runs," came the reply.)
The result: Perot voters switched to the GOP in 1994, giving them the Congress. The bloc swung back to Clinton in 1996. It split in 2000; moved strongly for Bush in 2002 and 2004; and repudiated the Republicans in 2006. Once again these less partisan, change-oriented, often angry voters are in play. Recently I asked one of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's top strategists how much overlap there was between the Perot vote and a potential base for an independent Bloomberg candidacy. "Eighty-five percent," came the answer.
How can candidates today appeal to the "radical center"? Some issues remain from 1992, and some are new. Public financing of campaigns is still a top priority. (Let's hope that's not still true when Chelsea Clinton is old enough to run for President.) Today it's plain that the voting system glaringly needs repair too. A swirl of other issues may appeal to these voters—ranging from immigration reform (the proxy for free-floating anxiety) and anti-free-trade sentiment to new concerns about a resurgent Imperial Presidency.
Especially intriguing, each candidate today has some claim on the political change vote. McCain sponsored the bipartisan campaign finance bill that became law in 2002. Obama was a key sponsor of ethics reform. Hillary Clinton introduced omnibus election reform that is the best single bill on voting. Neither party seems content to simply turn out its own base, as Karl Rove did so effectively for the Republicans over the past eight years. The early skirmish between McCain and Obama on whether they will participate in the presidential public funding system is a telling sign that the independent-minded voters are already "in play."
There are many good reasons to hope these candidates speak to the need for repair of our democratic systems. It's the right thing to do, for one. Moreover, democracy reforms are the only way that profound policy change will be possible after Election Day. All true. But something far more basic is at work: A bid for the mantle of political reform isn't just high mindedness, it's raw political self-interest. And that's good for the country.
> More posts from the Michael Waldman can be found on his bio page.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Other Reforms, Public Financing
By Deborah Goldberg – 02/15/08
There's been a lot of talk lately about whether presidential candidates Obama and McCain
have a "deal" to accept public funding if they are their parties'
nominees. What we should be talking
about is why a "deal" has become necessary and why there is a serious risk
that, if it ever existed, it will collapse under the weight of private money
flooding the campaigns. We also should
be talking about what it means for our country that our leaders—President,
Senators, Members of the House of Representatives—are dependent on funds raised
from wealthy individuals and special interests to run for office.
For many years, every major-party candidate for president
opted into our presidential public funding system to run his campaign. There was no need to cut a deal. There was enough money provided through the
system to ensure that the candidates could vigorously compete.
The presidential public funding system freed the candidates
from the endless money chase. They could
spend their time talking to voters—and maybe even listening to them!—instead of
ingratiating themselves to a minute clique of wealthy contributors with
not-so-hidden agendas. Because rich
donors could not claim credit for the winner's success, there was reason to hope
that the President would consult the interests of ordinary Americans when
making national policy decisions.
Granted, some of the current candidates are less dependent
on deep pockets than others. But research released by the Campaign Finance Institute shows that, as of the end of 2007, only
one candidate had raised even half of his funds from small donors-and he's not
part of the "deal." When all of a candidates' funds come from
small donors or public financing, we'll have a lot less concern about who is
likely to be pulling the policy strings.
It is a simple matter to update the presidential public
funding system provides so that it can provide the resources necessary for
competitive campaigns. There is already
a bill that will
do the job. There is also a bill that
would provide public funding for U.S. Senate, and there soon will be a House companion. If our leaders can reach office without debts
to donors, they are in a much better position to hear the voices of
voters.
The hope that our next President will listen to us should
not be dependent upon a "deal" between two major contenders. The candidates' "deal" should be with the
people. That is what democracy is all
about.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Contribution Limits, Other Reforms, Disclosure, Public Financing
By Laura MacCleery – 02/13/08
Today's
Roll Call editorial on campaign finance problems
dodged and weaved where it should have illuminated. It also portends that we may soon be dealing with a dangerous new threat from a stealth campaign, only a few years after passage of the
Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA), to once again raise contribution limits.
While we agree that electioneering activity should be regulated, we are not at all interested in getting there at the cost of an increase in contribution limits for money given directly to candidates. Both 527s and the behemoth 501cs that can easily comply can and should be regulated as PACs. That has little to do with contribution limits, despite Roll Call's straining to make it so.
Given the unprecedented flow of both small and large money into campaign coffers this year, totaling nearly $500 million thus far, the audacity of asking for yet more bling is rather breathtaking. The Roll Call piece suggests that some may be floating the idea of trading more regulation of PAC-like electioneering activity for an increase in limits. That is a terrible idea.
The solution to the problem of special interest money in politics is not to have more special interest money. The real answer here is a robust system of public funding of elections. Public funding enables viable candidates to stand on their own two feet and mount a real campaign that is not dependent on special interest monies. No one step could be more helpful to weaning American elections off their addiction to private cash.
The reform community should make sure to pop this trial balloon with a loud bang. Our choice is not between the rock of electioneering by independent groups and the hard place of more power to the PACs. Instead, we need a third way, and voluntary public funding is that way.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Contribution Limits, Other Reforms, Disclosure
By Ciara Torres-Spelliscy – 02/06/08
Mayor Bloomberg recently
complained publicly that a possible $90 million price tag might be too much to spend on providing public funds in municipal elections. He suggested a few changes to New York City's public matching funds system, stating: "If you don't have any competition, you shouldn't get money, and you shouldn't be able to hire relatives."
This is a tad misleading. Any candidate who is unopposed is ineligible for public matching grants. See New York City Campaign Finance Board Rules 5-01(i)(2). The Mayor may be referring to the more complicated problem of candidates who face only "nominal" opposition. Not being clairvoyant, there is no way for the Campaign Finance Board to know whether a candidate will garner 1 percent or 51 percent of the vote before the election. Therefore, it seems reasonable for the Board to continue to provide public funds to those who are opposed and withhold public funds from those who are unopposed.
As for hiring family members, any candidate in New York City is legally required to hire a treasurer for his or her campaign. For a small or a first time campaign, the only person willing to serve in this capacity might be a spouse or a sibling. Since candidates must have a treasurer, it makes sense that a treasurer who is a family member could be paid in part with public funds, once the candidate qualifies. But the Mayor may be right about compensating the other campaign workers who are not statutorily required. Using public dollars to pay a candidate's cousin to distribute campaign literature, when others would do it for minimum wage or on a volunteer basis, may not be the most prudent use of public funds.
However, with a proposed $9,989,000,000 (that's nearly $10 billion) budget for fiscal 2009, New York City could still definitely afford to spend $90 million (or less than one percent of its overall budget) on making its elections democratic.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing
By Lawrence Norden – 01/31/08
For campaign finance junkies there were two very interesting reports out today. One shows that Barack Obama raised a stunning $32 million last month. And
another shows that, until very recently, anyway, John McCain's campaign was virtually broke.
Does this tell us
anything about how these two candidates might stack up against each other
financially in a general election? Maybe
not. An often overlooked deal between McCain and Sen. Obama last March to accept
public financing if they both got their parties' nominations is suddenly
seeming pretty important.
As David Kirkpatrick of
the New York Times noted almost ten months ago:
"Such a pact would
eliminate any financial edge one candidate might have and limit each campaign to
$85 million for the general election. The two candidates would have to return
any private donations that they had raised for that period."
But there's one more
wrinkle to this story. Just two days
ago, Politico reported that after a recent increase in fundraising (following his victories in New
Hampshire and South Carolina) McCain is seeking to get out of the public
financing program for the primaries. The
Federal Elections Commission might have to sign off on his exit from the
program, which poses a problem given the current political stalemate
handicapping the agency.
What this might mean
for the "deal" struck between Obama and McCain regarding public
financing for the general election is anyone's guess.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing
By Ciara Torres-Spelliscy – 12/26/07
* Cross posted from the Huffington Post
Like the Greeks mounting assault after assault on Troy, James Bopp ceaselessly assails federal campaign finance law in an attempt to destroy it. In the summer of 2007, Bopp delivered his Trojan horse: a clever attack on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA also known as McCain-Feingold) to the Supreme Court by a group called Wisconsin Right to Life. The decision under the new conservative Court gutted BCRA's restrictions on corporate spending on campaign ads aired directly before federal elections.
Now Bopp is aiming to dismantle one of the main pillars of campaign finance regulation with a conservative front group ironically named Citizen United. This time Bopp has targeted BCRA's rule requiring disclosure of who is paying for political advertisements. This attack is even more fundamental than the last. Without disclosure of who is paying for an ad, it would be impossible for voters to properly assess the meaning of the message. An ad about a candidate's stance on the environment would be viewed more skeptically by voters if they knew the ad was paid for by Exxon Mobil. If Americans are robbed of this key information, voters could easily be misled and informed democratic choice would disappear.
Bopp and his ilk wrap themselves in the First Amendment and claim to be battling for the public good. But what they are really doing is pushing subterfuge. A democracy needs clear and candid information about campaign sources of cash, including who ponied up the big bucks to buy an election attack ad.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Disclosure
By Bethany Foster – 12/07/07
*Cross-posted from The Huffington Post's Off the Bus
You're way behind in fundraising for congressional races. The tide
of public opinion is against you. What's a party to do? Recruit
super-wealthy candidates, of course.
Last week the New York Times described the GOP's plan
to seek candidates able to self-finance their campaigns to make up for
relatively weak fundraising numbers. In the first 10 months of 2007,
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised $16 million more than the National Republican Congressional Committee. The GOP's Senate committee raised just $26.3 million in the same period compared to the $45.1 million raised by its Democratic counterpart. Yet as the Times notes, the Democrats too have their share of deep-pocketed contenders.
The unabashed interest in wealthy candidates is one of this campaign
season's most blatant signs that our system of choosing elected
officials is broken. Instead of seeking out the brightest, most capable
Americans to take on the tough issues facing our country, the parties
are checking the wallets of potential candidates for American Express Black Cards.
So what's the alternative? Public financing of congressional
elections. As we've seen on the state level in Maine and Arizona,
public financing systems give candidates of any personal means
the chance to attract public support and receive funds to run a
competitive campaign. Public financing frees candidates from the
pressures of fundraising, allowing sitting officials to concentrate on
serving their constituents. Out on the trail, publicly funded
candidates woo voters, not just big donors, by addressing the issues
important to ordinary Americans. And individuals who would rather stick
to the old system are able to opt out and raise funds privately.
A bill like the
Fair Elections Now Act,
introduced by Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Specter (R-PA), would go a
long way toward making campaigns more about fitness for office and less
about individual wealth or access to big donors.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing
By Deborah Goldberg – 11/15/07
*Cross-posted from The Nation
Let's set the record straight once and for all. The Supreme Court opened the soft-money floodgates in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission
last June, but it did not change disclosure rules. The real problem is
that disclosure alone does not get us open, honest and accountable
government, and closing every loophole won't either. What we need is
public funding of federal elections, and we need it ASAP.
Contrary to a number of recent news reports (the New York Times article of November 12, "A New Channel for Soft Money Starts Flowing," is a good example), the Supreme Court has not sanctioned political advertising without disclosure. The Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America
would not be subject to disclosure rules for its current South Carolina
ads featuring Senator John McCain, even if the Supreme Court had never
decided the Wisconsin Right to Life case. (I leave aside the
question whether the "foundation" should have been set up as a PAC.)
The law that the Court reviewed does not kick in until thirty days
before a federal primary election, and we're not there yet, even in
South Carolina. When we do get there, the ad sponsors will be subject
to the usual disclosure requirements. The Court did not touch them.
(Not yet, at least.)
The June case was a challenge to a specific provision of the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA," or "McCain-Feingold"), which
barred corporations from using treasury funds for "electioneering
communications"--certain political ads aired thirty days before a
federal primary or sixty days before a general election. Wisconsin
Right to Life is a nonprofit corporation that is covered by BCRA, and
it wanted to use its treasury funds to run electioneering
communications about Senator Russ Feingold and the filibuster of
judicial nominations. The Supreme Court ruled that the ads were
advocacy about an issue, not against Feingold, so the nonprofit could
use its treasury funds for those ads.
Media critics are right when they report that the Supreme Court opened the door for more spending. It is fair to say, as the Times
did, that "thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision," more soft
money will start flowing. But the Court did not sanction secret
financing of political advertising, and groups running electioneering
communications should know that they are still required to disclose
major donors and disbursements. In other words, if the South Carolina
ads continue to run during the period thirty days before the state's
mid-January primary, the undisclosed financiers of those ads will have
to be disclosed (unless they contributed less than $1,000). If the
advertisers don't disclose, they will violate federal law.
The media's relentless, and relentlessly narrow, focus on the ads
and the spending obscures the deeper problem with our campaign finance
system. We are fixated on the candidates' endless money chase and the
expected flood of corporate funds into shadow campaigns. But we have
forgotten why we care. The point is not to eliminate money from the
political process but rather to ensure that we have open, honest and
accountable government.
For that, we need fundamental reform, not just devices to close up
loopholes. We need public funding of presidential and Congressional
campaigns. With public financing of elections, elected representatives
can respond to the interests of voters instead of worrying about the
deep-pocketed donors on the lookout for loopholes.
Public funding won't stop the constant hunt for loopholes; that game
will continue as long as wealthy interests want to influence politics.
But loopholes just wouldn't matter as much if candidates had a
meaningful alternative to private largesse. That option is public
funding, and it is already working in states and localities around the
country.
Federal bills have already been introduced for presidential and
Congressional public funding. This is not rocket science. What are we
waiting for?
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Other Reforms, Disclosure, Public Financing
Page 4 of 5 pages « First < 2 3 4 5 >
0 comments | Permalink