Money in Politics 2009 | Panel One
Panel One: Is the Small Donor Revolution Hype or Reality? Campaign Finance and Political Engagement
Our one-day conference, Money in Politics 2009: New Horizons for Reform, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., May 8th, 2009, took the first systematic look at what happened in 2008, and its implications for policy, politics and law in 2009 and beyond. It brought together leading experts on campaign finance, preeminent governmental and campaign officials, and advocates to assess new ideas and map out new directions in campaign finance.
Use the sidebar to navigate to other programs in the conference. Click on the videos to begin viewing or read the summary below.
Laura MacCleery | Introduction
Michael Malbin (1/2)
Michael Malbin (2/2)
Norm Eisen (1/2)
Norm Eisen (2/2)
Rev. Lennox Yearwood (1/2)
Rev. Lennox Yearwood (2/2)
Dr. Thomas Stratmann
Andrew Hoppin
Summary of Panel One
After a welcome from panel moderator Laura MacCleery, Michael Malbin kicked off the panel by discussing the Campaign Finance Institute's data on small donors in the 2008 election. Mr. Malbin noted that in the presidential primary, 49 percent of then-Senator Barack Obama's contributions came from small donors who gave $200 or less. Indeed, money from small donors provided the Obama campaign with the money to outpace Senator Hillary Clinton's primary fundraising.
Over the full election cycle, 26 percent of Obama's contributions came from donors who gave $200 or less, and many small donors donated multiple times. When aggregated over the entire campaign, many donors whose incremental donations were below $200 ended up giving a higher amount in the aggregate. Mr. Malbin queried whether the Obama small donor phenomenon could be replicated.
To date, he noted, this pattern has not been duplicated in either Senate or House races. In Congressional races in 2008, most contributions came from PACSs and individuals who contributed $1,000 or more. Indeed Mr. Malbin noted that to create a significant small donor base, candidates must first raise enough money to get their names out into the public arena.
White House ethics advisor Norm Eisen spoke next, describing his experiences as a first-hand witness on the Obama campaign as evidence of the fact that the small donor revolution is now a reality, and not merely hype. He noted that after Obama won the Iowa Caucuses, internet giving started to "go crazy." He also reminded the audience that the Obama campaign did not accept money from lobbyists or PACs, a fact which , he suggested, made the campaign indebted only to the public. Furthermore, Mr. Eisen argued that the small donor ethos has carried over into Obama's style of governance. He argued that the continuous feedback loop between on-line and off-line operations gave the Obama campaign momentum.
Rev. Lennox Yearwood of the 700,000-person Hip Hop Caucus argued for the need to pass the Fair Elections Now Act (FENA). From his experience as a military chaplain and his observations of elected officials, he noted that being in a position of power in the United States is a matter of life and death. Civil rights heroes of the past like Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King, Jr., he suggested, had given their lives so that elections would matter. Rev. Yearwood argued that the electoral process should be about the people's business, and not corporate interests. He noted that the crass approach of poll taxes has been superseded by more subtle ways of subversion, including the ways in which elections are privately funded. Rev. Yearwood suggested that the fight to pass FENA is a "lunch counter moment" for the 21st Century. According to the Reverend, FENA would shift the status quo of relying on a small number of large donors to a new paradigm in which candidates would rely instead on a large number of small donors.
Dr. Thomas Stratmann detailed his findings from a newly released report regarding low contribution limits that he co-authored with the Brennan Center's Ciara Torres-Spelliscy and Kahlil Williams, titled "Electoral Competition and Low Contribution Limits." He found that relative to races which were subject to high contribution limit of $2,000 or more, races that were subject to lower limits had more candidates in the races, more races in which there was a viable challenger, more close races, and more races in which the challenger won. Additionally, states that limit individual contributions to $500 or less displayed a 20 percentage point smaller fundraising gap between incumbents and challengers relative to states with an individual contribution limit of $2,000 or higher. Finally, when studying Minnesota's partial public financing system and Maine's full public financing system, Professor Stratmann found that winners' margins of victory and incumbents' margins of victory are about 16 percentage points lower in those two states than in those without public financing. Races in states with public financing were about 4 percent more likely to have a close election, and 29 percent more likely to have a viable challenger. Professor Stratmann concluded that only low individual and PAC contribution limits of $500 and below are as effective as public financing in enhancing the competitiveness of elections.
Finally, Andrew Hoppin from the New York Senate discussed his efforts to make New York State's government more transparent. The public can now watch hearings live on the web and can submit their own mark-ups of bills. He argued that there is a new class of active and involved citizens. But at the same time, it is harder for regulators to separate what is campaign-related and non-campaign-related work. He provided an example of lawmakers stating Web page addresses for private petitions while speaking on the floor of the legislature. However, these actions could be interpreted as using tax dollars to build a political mailing list. Mr. Hoppin concluded by stating that we may need to develop new policies to face the ethical challenges created by new technology.
Moderator Laura MacCleery opened the question and answer portion of the first panel by asking Michael Malbin to share his thoughts about the effects of "frontloading" the presidential primary election calendar as highlighted in a recent article by Mr. Malbin. Mr. Malbin responded first by pointing out that several presidential candidates, some of whom went on to win the presidency, would not have been able to compete were it not for the existence of public funds early on the primary. However, Mr. Malbin noted that with the increasingly early primary calendar, presidential candidates now have to compete with wealthy opponents by seeking out larger and larger contributions.
Ms. MacCleery next asked panelists to describe the interplay between on-line and off-line organizing in the 2008 presidential election. Mr. Eisen responded first by confirming that the Obama campaign attempted to create a "continuous feedback loop" in which on-line activities and off-line activities would complement one another. The process took some time to begin, but quickly gained momentum. Mr. Eisen is considering the ways in which the same "virtuous cycle" can be employed in government. Reverend Yearwood seconded the importance of a feedback loop and emphasized that many communities exist in a kind of "institutional void" and require both the on-line and off-line components of political engagement. And Andrew Hoppin confirmed the ability of Twitter and other real-time social networking tools to empower candidates.
A questioner from the audience then asked how Mr. Eisen intends to use his influence to educate others about the feedback loop to which he referred. Mr. Eisen cited the various ways in which President Obama has changed the ethics landscape in Washington and applauded the President's theme of taking on special interests and lobbyists. Mr. Eisen closed his response by boldly stating that "the best is yet to come," which garnered a significant amount of applause from the audience.