Blog
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, 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 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 James Sample – 01/05/06
*Cross-posted at TomPaine.com
Last night, with lobbyist Jack Abramoff having
entered his second guilty plea in as many days, was a moment begging
for integrity in government. Instead, Congress and the White House
colluded to deny the American people a public confirmation process for
the individuals charged with regulating federal elections. Their action
was shameless and straightforward: they used the president’s recess
appointment power to sneak through a slate of politically cozy Federal
Election Commissioners who will further weaken the already toothless
FEC.
The indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay; the
metastasizing investigation into the web-spinning of lobbyist Jack
Abramoff; and the revelation that Representative Randy “Duke”
Cunningham accepted over $2.4 million in bribes from a defense
contractor all tended in favor of strengthening the FEC—not weakening
it. But weaken is exactly what Congress and the White House did, and
they did it without a public hearing.
The FEC has six commissioners appointed by the president and
confirmed by the Senate, with no more than three members to be
affiliated with a single political party. Although only one position
was actually empty, four of the six seats on the commission were
technically vacant, with commissioners serving despite expired terms.
Thus, President Bush had a unique opportunity to appoint a full
two-thirds of the commission. Suddenly urgent, however, the opportunity
was not. In fact, the circumstances have existed since August. But
because few things unite Republicans and Democrats like incumbency, the
last four months produced not even a single appointment until last
night when President Bush announced the recess appointments of three
individuals: Robert Lenhard, Steven Walther and Hans von
Spakovsky. Though unstated by the White House, the implication is that
current GOP Commissioner David Mason will remain as an acting
commissioner indefinitely.
The announcement of recess appointments ignored a request by the
bipartisan sponsors of the nation’s principal federal campaign finance
law. Recently, Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold,
D-Wi., and Representatives Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Marty
Meehan, D-Mass., sent President Bush a letter urging him not to fill
FEC vacancies via recess appointments. Just as importantly, the letter
recommended that the president seize the “rare opportunity to change
the makeup of the ineffective FEC” by nominating individuals who are
“professionally qualified, independent-minded, and publicly credible.”
In Washington such advice is heresy. Not surprisingly, it was treated
accordingly.
Just as former FEMA Director Michael Brown was longer on connections
than qualifications, so too are the recess appointees. As if to
underscore Washington’s current culture of corruption, one of the
Republican appointees, Hans von Spakovsky, played a critical role in
upholding DeLay’s controversial Texas redistricting plan. Along with
other Bush appointees at the Department of Justice, Von Spakovsky
overruled the unanimous opinions of DOJ’s staff attorneys who concluded
that the plan violated the Voting Rights Act. Von Spakovsky will feel
right at home as an FEC commissioner since, at DOJ, he was largely
responsible for undermining the very civil rights laws he was employed
to enforce.
Rest assured, however, that the dynamic is deeply
bipartisan. President Bush accepted Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s
recommendations of Reno lawyer Steven Walther and labor lawyer Robert
Lenhard to fill the Democratic posts. Walther, who served as an
attorney for Reid in 1998, has no experience in campaign finance law.
More troublesome is Lenhard, who is on record as opposing the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). Lenhard worked as counsel with
one of the many labor organizations that unsuccessfully challenged the
constitutionality of BCRA in the courts. While not certain, it appears
Sen. Reid thus acted covertly to undercut a popular law that—when the
nation’s attention was trained on it—he helped to pass. The whole point
is that the public was cheated of the opportunity to know. Yesterday in
Washington was not a time for politicians to be offering their usual
“trust me” bromides.
Questions of federal election law are complex and important. The FEC
requires qualified, committed commissioners, not cronies who place
politics ahead of principle. In the context of election laws, the
“sides” are not limited to party leaders; they include the voters who
elected those leaders in the first place. Under the circumstances, and
in light of months of inaction, the recess appointments manifest a
bipartisan cabal of cowardice and corruption.
Even the most attention-hungry politicians hide in the shadows when
working to undermine laws regulating their own behavior. In such
situations the glare of public scrutiny serves the people, not
self-interested politicians. To be sure, recess appointments are
appropriate—even necessary—for certain offices at certain times. But
the Federal Election Commission is not one of those offices. And
yesterday was absolutely not one of those times.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Other Reforms
Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2
0 comments | Permalink