Blog
Other Reforms
By Laura MacCleery – 04/07/08
Cross-posted from a Roll Call editorial.
For the first time ever, presidential candidates have managed to turn small donors into their greatest funding source, sending signals that the small-donor revolution — a mere experiment by Howard Dean just four years ago — has officially arrived. In February 2008, according to a Campaign Finance Institute analysis of the latest official campaign receipts, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) raised 56 percent of his contributions in increments of $200 or less, while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) raised 52 percent in similar amounts.
But this February was the first time the much-celebrated small donors of these campaigns exceeded the halfway mark in overall receipts. And looking further down the ballot, there is little sign that the small-donor revolution is taking root. In Congressional politics, the world of small donors is decidedly smaller.
February's presidential numbers reveal some key, unrevolutionary trends. First, the gains were notably lopsided between the parties. While both Democrats in February raised a total of $30.5 million from these small donors, Republican candidates, overall, collected only $5.1 million from the same group. Arizona Sen. John McCain brought in a mere 20 percent from donors who gave $200 or less.
Second, large donors are still a significant part of the overall take. Even in February, CFI reported that donations of $1,000 or more were 22 percent, 25 percent and 67 percent of the Obama, Clinton and McCain campaigns' contributions, respectively.
It also is too early to say whether the small-donor welcome mat will stay out very long. In January, CFI research shows that 46 percent of Obama's $36 million and 35 percent of Clinton's nearly $20 million came from contributors donating $200 or less. McCain raised 24 percent of his contributions ($2.6 million) from these small donors. Who's to say February's numbers weren't just a spike in the enthusiasm surrounding Super Tuesday?
More critical, however, is whether this small-donor frenzy spills over into the hundreds of far less visible Congressional campaigns that lack the fanfare of national change. CFI reports that Democratic and Republican Senatorial candidates are collecting just 6 percent to 22 percent of their funds from small donors. In total, in 2007, donations of $200 or less were a mere 17 percent of all Senate contributions and 27 percent of House-raised funds.
Congressional incumbents, predictably, have the highest reliance on deep-pocketed donors. Pre- election-year fundraising comparisons reveal that incumbents in 2007 took in six to seven times more money from large donors (giving $1,000 or more) than from contributors in the $200 or less category.
And Congress is where concerns about the influence of money on politics should be most acute. Last session, Congressional ethics scandals sent two Members of Congress to jail for influence-peddling, and there have been three additional indictments of lawmakers thus far, as well as five Members who reportedly are still being investigated by law enforcement. In Alaska, state-level scandals made one of the most senior Members of the Senate, Ted Stevens (R), the target of a federal investigation. And it may not be over yet. Notorious super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff is, according to the latest press reports, still cooperating with investigators.
So, despite the rise of a small-donor democracy, contribution limits still very much matter and are likely to matter for some time to come. The soft-money ban in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 deserves much of the credit: By prohibiting corporate and union contributions to political parties, BCRA pushed candidates to reach out more broadly for individual support.
Looking forward, both meaningful limits and transparency rules are important for the health of an exciting new wave of reforms — public funding systems — because they keep overall costs reasonable and inform the public about all of the players seeking to influence the outcome of elections.
Indeed, without a system of limits in place, it will be hard for publicly funded candidates to keep up with the spending of privately financed competitors. And a robust system of disclosure of independent expenditures enables public funding systems to release more public money when warranted by an influx of outsider money into a race. Limits and disclosure are critical complements to the public funding systems that have succeeded in Arizona and Maine.
Limits can be tailored to specifically value the significance of small donors by allowing innovative vehicles like small-donor political action committees. These special PACs collect contributions in more limited amounts from individual donors than PACs generally can, but they also can give more total money to each candidate than other types of PACs. In this way, small donors make a big splash without rules that could elevate the influence of the wealthy above other voters.
Future proposals will no doubt evolve in appreciation of the burgeoning growth and power of small donations. Certainly, the landscape of money in politics is being transformed in encouraging ways. The influx of small money is a great sign that politics is engaging voters, and it does improve the health of our democracy. But in all the thrill and excitement, we should not forget that contribution limits are playing an important role in making this revolution possible — and ensuring the voices of small donors aren't drowned out by big money and special interests.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Other Reforms, Public Financing
By Laura MacCleery – 03/27/08
(Cross-posted from The Hill Blog)
Recent weeks have seen a ratcheting up of promises by outside groups to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the presidential race. On the right, $2 million is expected from a conservative 501(c)(4) called "Defense of Democracies" for election-related opposition to House Democrats who oppose the President's electronic spying plan. Another non-profit, Freedom's Watch has pledged to spend some $250 million opposing the Democratic nominee.
And progressive groups recently floated a $400 million target for both electioneering communications and voter mobilization efforts. While the Campaign Finance Institute reports that a record $143 million was spent in 2006, that then-shocking total today looks like chump change.
A short history of how we got here is in order. As a new legal analysis and summary by the Brennan Center makes clear, before passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA"), campaign finance laws applied only to "express advocacy" - an advertisement for or against a candidate that used specific "magic words," such as "vote for" or "vote against." This test made it impossible to distinguish "sham issue ads" (ads that avoided these magic words, but were nonetheless intended to influence an election) from genuine issue ads (ads that advance a position on a public issue)...
Continue reading this piece at The Hill Blog.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Other Reforms, Disclosure, Public Financing
By Ciara Torres-Spelliscy – 03/14/08
The New York Times has
reported that "Federal prosecutors are investigating whether Gov. Eliot Spitzer used campaign funds in connection with his meetings with prostitutes, including payments for hotels or ground transportation..."
So what exactly can a politician in New York do with campaign funds? Sadly, he or she can do a lot that isn't related to campaigning for office.
On its face, New York Election Law § 14-130 bans personal use of campaign funds, stating that "[c]ontributions received by a candidate or a political committee . . . shall not be converted by any person to a personal use which is unrelated to a political campaign or the holding of a public office or party position."
While this may be clear enough, over time, the law has been given such a strained interpretation in practice that candidates can and do utilize campaign funds in many ways that would appear to the average voter to be, in fact, personal.
For example,
opinions issued by the State Board of Elections permit candidates for elected office to use campaign funds: 1) to cover travel costs between their home jurisdictions and Albany; 2) to pay for memorial services for lawmakers who have died; 3) to give money to a charity of choice; 4) to pay for child care services; 5) to pay for receptions for campaign contributors; 6) to pay for portraits of retiring public officials; and 7) to pay for the production of a public access cable television program about governmental issues.
Beyond specific opinions from the Board of Elections sanctioning these particular uses of campaign funds, there is little further definition and, certainly, no laundry list of what is allowed or prohibited to guide the public, candidates and regulators. This lack of legal guidance gives candidates and elected officials far too much latitude to decide the boundaries of the law for themselves. The ambiguity about personal use has led to situations where New York lawmakers routinely use campaign funds to pay for non-campaign items.
For example, Senator Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno, who will soon assume the duties of Lt. Governor, infamously used campaign funds to pay for his pool cover and then claimed that it was a legitimate campaign expense. In another
egregious case, Senator Martin Connor spent over $70,000 on his car as a "campaign expense" during a period when he faced no primary or general election opponents.
Other Albany lawmakers have been caught using campaign funds to pay for cell phones, country clubs, sporting events tickets, legal bills, meals and pet food. The Brennan Center
has long advocated that New York revise and clarify the law so that it could actually prevent politicians from using campaign funds to attend baseball games or buy kibbles. And, the Brennan Center has also pointed out the other
many flaws in New York's decrepit campaign finance system.
Fortunately for Spitzer's campaign contributors, he can't weasel through the personal use loophole because the same section of the election law also states that "[c]ontributions received by a candidate or a political committee may be expended for any lawful purpose." (emphasis added). Therefore, if Spitzer did use campaign funds to break state or federal law, it would appear that he violated state campaign finance laws.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Other Reforms
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, 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, Other Reforms, Disclosure
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
By Bethany Foster – 02/02/07
*Cross-posted from ReformNY
We're feeling a little bit like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. In the movie, weatherman Phil Connors is sent to Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania to cover the ceremonial emergence of the groundhog who shares his first name. To his horror, Phil discovers that each day after that dawns not anew but as that same Groundhog Day.
For us, the nightmare is waking up every day and reading about the same people doing the same thing: New York politicians, with their nearly 100% reelection rates and few viable challengers, legally raising astronomical amounts of campaign cash that, after the election, they can use for things clearly unrelated to campaigning.
Next week we’ll get a fresh reminder of this constant fundraising; a law passed in 1995 is set to cause contribution limits, already sky-high, to escalate even further. Every four years (this is the third iteration), the limits are adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index, which has risen almost 12% since the last adjustment in 2002.
The resulting change in the New York contribution limit for individuals giving to gubernatorial candidates, shaking out to around $4,000, will actually be larger than the entire allowable contribution in 21 states.
In the words of Phil/Bill: “There is no way this winter is ever going to end as long as that groundhog keeps seeing his shadow. I don't see any way out of it. He's got to be stopped. And I have to stop him.”
We echo the sentiment and vow to keep pushing for more reasonable contribution limits and other critical campaign finance reform.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Other Reforms, NY Reform
Page 10 of 11 pages « First < 8 9 10 11 >
Permalink