Watchdog Blog

Double Standards and Fair Elections

From Joe Newman over at Citizenvox.org:

There’s an interesting breakdown on the FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) site of how the herd mentality of the media seems to have a double standard when it comes to the presidential candidates and their views on public financing of the general election. While Public Citizen is non-partisan, we do feel strongly about public financing of elections as one of the best ways to reduce the influence of special interests in politics. Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) have introduced the bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act, which would create a voluntary system to publicly fund congressional elections. You can help this effort by signing on to be a “citizen co-sponor” of this legislation.

Who's got more money?

Money, money, money.  It seems that's all we hear in the news about the upcoming election.  It should be about ideas and leadership, not dollars.  Fortunately, there's a solution: public funding of elections.

Now is a vital time to act. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) will soon introduce a House version of the bill Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced in the Senate: the Fair Elections Now Act.  Under Fair Elections, candidates would no longer need to worry about chasing money from wealthy special interests.  They can focus on the voters and the critical challenges facing our nation today. 

It is important that we get many representatives to sign on to support this reform.

During Fair Elections Action Week, April 14-18, 2008, let's call on Congress to end the corrupting influence of money in politics. Actions and events will take place all across the country and you can be a part of the movement.

Time for Devil in the Details to Go Digital

These days almost everything can be done electronically: paying bills, buying music, watching movies . . . the IRS even allows tax returns to be submitted online.

But not in the Senate. There, they prefer to waste taxpayer dollars on paper and keep voters in the dark about campaign dollars.

The current system for senators to submit campaign finance reports to the Federal Election Commission is a maze of back-and-forth between agencies that requires printing and re-typing the same information repeatedly.  The result is an annual $250,000.00 bill to taxpayers and the delayed release of information to the public.

Bundlers in Limbo

Yesterday, Roll Call ($) pointed out that a hard-won ethics reform is languishing because the Federal Election Commission (FEC) remains without a quorum.  The political wrangling over the Commission – and downright stubbornness of the Republicans in their insistence on the appointment of Hans von Spakovsky has left candidates and lobbyists in limbo.

Public Citizen worked to pass the landmark lobbying and ethics reform bill last year in the wake of continual congressional scandals.  One of the benefits of this new law is that it requires federal candidates – running for Congress or the presidency – to disclose if lobbyists are “bundling” campaign contributions of their behalf.  The FEC is supposed to implement and enforce this new law, and they are out-of-commission (so to speak).

Roll Call quoted Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division:

The delay in implementing the rule is depriving the public of important information. It’s best the public knows as much as it can.  We’d rather have disclosure of all the bundlers, but lobbyists are the best place to start. By definition, they’re in business to ask the government for favors, so their contributions should be looked at the most skeptically.

Obama's Answer

On February 15, we sent a letter to Senator Barack Obama urging him to keep his promise to opt-in to the Presidential Public Financing system if he were the Democratic nominee, and the Republican nominee also used public funds. The likely Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, has agreed to these terms, but a spokesperson for the Obama campaign recently made a statement that conflicts with the committment made by Senator Obama. 

Read Obama's response printed in USA Today:

Both sides must agree
I will seek a good faith pact that results in real spending limits.

In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee.

Candidates Still Not Disclosing: Public Citizen Demands More on Bundlers

Public Citizen today sent letters to the seven major presidential candidates who have yet to provide any insight into how much their top fundraisers have raised. The letters asked the candidates to promptly disclose the names of bundlers who have brought in at least $100,000. The letters note that this minimal standard for disclosure was set by then-Gov. George W. Bush in his 2000 presidential campaign.

All of the candidates who have a realistic chance of capturing their party’s nomination are using bundlers, but only Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have provided any insight into how much their bundlers have raised. Obama names bundlers who have raised at least $50,000, $100,000 and $200,000; Clinton discloses bundlers who have raised at least $100,000.

The eventual winner of this presidential election will almost certainly feel a debt of gratitude to his or her bundlers. Voters have a right to know who these superfundraisers are before they choose which candidate to send to the Oval Office.

Letters to the candidates can be viewed here.

The House Ethics Committee Parties On

The notorious House ethics committee – the one that in the previous Congress presided over the wave of Abramoff-related lobbying scandals without conducting a single investigation into any of them – recently issued absurd new guidelines to keep the “party” in the 2008 national party conventions.

The new lobbying and ethics law bans lobbyists and lobbying organizations from hosting or paying for lavish parties for lawmakers at the national party conventions. The new congressional ethics rule is worded very simply and the meaning obvious on its face. House Rule 25 reads as follows:

"During the dates on which the national political party to which a Member (including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner) belongs holds its convention to nominate a candidate for the office of President or Vice President, the Member may not participate in an event honoring that Member, other than in his or her capacity as a candidate for such office, if such event is directly paid for by a registered lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 or a private entity that retains or employs such a registered lobbyist."

As it reads, it would seem this would be the end of lavish soirées sponsored by lobbyists to wine and dine lawmakers at the party conventions.

But wait! Lobbyists, lobbying organizations, party officials, everybody understood this would be the end of especially lavish access – and they all grumbled.  As for lawmakers, perhaps they simply could not bear to part with the lobbyist bashes. Quite frankly, they must have reasoned, what else is there to do at the conventions?

So the House ethics committee interpreted the new rule to prohibit lobbyists from sponsoring a party for a single lawmaker – but if the lobbyist wants to host a party for two or more lawmakers without honoring any specific lawmaker – such as a caucus or delegation of lawmakers – that would be just fine as far as the ethics committee is concerned.

Shame on them.

Ah, the House ethics committee continues to live up to its reputation of enforcing lobbyist access over ethics. This self-created and self-serving loophole must be closed now.  If it’s not, we will be glad to dog any lawmaker – or group of lawmakers who choose to flout the intent of the new lobbying and ethics law and party on at the conventions. 

I hope we don’t have to crash the party.  But if we do, I’ll see ya in St. Paul and Denver.

A New Chance to Make Presidential Campaigns about Voters Not Dollars

Today, amid considerable fanfare, bipartisan legislation was introduced in both houses of Congress to overhaul the way we finance the presidential campaigns. It is long, long overdue.

In 2008, winning the nation’s highest elective office is going to cost $1 billion between the two major party candidates. The figure is even higher if you include the vast sums spent by all the other candidates, parties and political committees.

Let’s put this figure into a little perspective. Viable presidential candidates must raise at least $100 million each by the end of 2007, before even entering the actual election year. This means collecting five $2,300 campaign contributions “every single hour, every single day, including weekends and holidays, for an entire year,” estimates political scientist Michael Malbin.

And then the fundraising really kicks into gear next year.

Where does all this money come from? Mostly from the same special interests who have business pending before the federal government. In order to make sure that jingle of the pocket books of any particular special interest are heard loud and clear, businesses and wealthy special interest groups will be represented by a “bundler.”

Bundlers usually are CEOs or lobbyists of a business or industry. They will approach a campaign and receive tracking identification from the campaign, say, a tracking number. The bundler then reaches out to all the managers and other individuals of the business or industry and ask them to mail in their individual campaign contributions of $2,300 (the legal limit from an individual to a federal candidate), and write the company’s tracking number of the check. That way the campaign knows which business or industry is responsible for those contributions.

Expect more Sham Ads

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) adopted new regulations that will make political attack ads more prevalent.  We've all seen these ads and most of us abhor them.  Rather than add to any political discourse, they are intended to sway voters with misleading statistics and outlandish claims.  These ads will always be around, but with this new rule, corporations can now dump tons of cash to get them aired in the days before an election.

We were concerned the FEC would totally gut the regulations for "electioneering communications," but they didn't.  With the scraps they left intact, corporations still can't fund ads before an election that say, "Candidate _____ should/shouldn't be president."  They have to refrain from mentioning a candidacy or an election and avoid talking about the qualifications, character, or fitness for office of any candidate.  Further, disclosure rules are also maintained so that we will continue to know who funds attack ads.  In other words, you can still expect to hear plenty of ads claiming, “Representative _____ wants the government to say what you are allowed to eat!”

While this rule is not as bad as we feared, it is still bad.  It’s in line with the Supreme Court’s devastating decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life which we knew would open the flood gates for more attack ads.  All voters can do now is brace themselves.

Sham Issue Ads – and Sham Rules

Today, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) will ratify its new regulations governing “sham issue ads” (electioneering communications). The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as the McCain-Feingold law) prohibits broadcast advertisements that air immediately before an election to be paid for from corporate or union treasury funds. However, the new Roberts Supreme Court ruled in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC that “genuine issue ads” should be exempt from the ban on corporate spending.

Public Citizen, along with many others, advised the FEC to craft its new regulations narrowly, within the confines of the Court’s ruling. This means carving out a special exemption from the corporate and union funding ban for ads that have no other reasonable meaning than to influence the election of candidates.

Workin' Too Hard For His Money

On Thursday, John Edwards announced that his campaign will accept public financing for his presidential campaign. Edwards told reporters that the decision was about taking “a principled stand” in favor of public financing and challenged his top opponents, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to do the same.

The public funding system was designed to help candidates like Edwards, whose polling in states like Iowa clearly demonstrates his ability to appeal to voters, just not the ones with the deepest pockets. That system hasn’t kept up with the times, however. Both Clinton and Obama will probably raise $100 million by the end of this year, money they’ll be able to spend freely. Edwards, meanwhile, will have his spending in most areas restricted to less than half of that. The frenetic pace set by this season’s primary schedules unfortunately tilts the playing field toward the most heavily-funded candidates. Restoring the public financing system would put some much needed balance back into the contest, giving all voters a better voice.

Clinton to Return Tainted Money

In a surprise move, Hillary Clinton announced that she would return contributions totaling $850,000 from convicted felon and captured fugitive, Norman Hsu.  Hsu bundled this obscene amount of contributions from about 260 other donors. Clinton’s campaign is following the urging of Public Citizen and others to return the tainted cash to each donor.

As we’ve mentioned before, Clinton is not the first to deal with unsavory fundraisers, and Clinton is not the only candidate to have received money from Hsu.  Around 24 Democrats have accepted campaign contributions from Hsu since 2004.

One can’t help but wonder who the 260 people Hsu collected money from are and what influence was promised in exchange.  So far, Clinton’s campaign isn’t disclosing the names of the donors bundled by Hsu.  The names of these individuals and their ties to Hsu should be public record – just as all bundled contributions should be.

Unfortunately, the ’08 candidates have been even more secretive than Bush and Kerry were in ’04 about who their bundlers are and how much they have raised (are there more Hsus waiting to drop?). None of the presidential candidates in this election are adequately disclosing their bundlers to the public, and none of the campaigns – until now – have bothered to fully check the bundler’s backgrounds. You can bet that each campaign is feverishly doing background checks on anyone who has given them (or their opponents) hefty sums of money. 

The Real Dirt on Presidential Fundraisers

The newspapers lit up this week with revelations that Norman Hsu, a top fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, not only may have violated campaign finance laws by laundering contributions through family members but is also a fugitive facing jail time.

While the press enjoyed a reprieve from the dog days of August, partisans delighted in the chance to score some points. Michelle Malkin, Washington’s reigning queen of indignation and a stand-in host on the “fair-and-balanced” network, gleefully taunted, “What say you now, Hillary?” on her blog. Malkin later opined that even Clinton’s pledge to return Hsu’s contributions could not erase the “stain.” Oooooooh.

Clinton’s troubles are about the same as the unpleasant circumstance Mitt Romney faced in mid-August when news broke that a Maryland grand jury had returned a 23-count indictment against a co-chairman of his national finance committee. Ouch. Malkin’s blog item scolding Romney for his failure to perform due diligence on the co-chairman, Alan B. Fabian, is available here. (Oops. Curiously, a review of Malkin’s archive was unable to unearth any such item.)

Aside from the fact that partisans will use campaign finance scandals for their own advantage, here is what the Hsu and Fabian episodes really show: Our campaign finance system attracts unsavory fundraisers - and candidates have little incentive to ferret out the bad apples. In reality, their true incentive is to remain blithely ignorant of their donors’ histories.

No More Campaign Cash from Lobbyists

I just learned from on rssrai on MyDD that a Gallup Poll released today shows that more Americans believe that the presidential candidates should NOT take money from lobbyists:

Eighty percent of Americans say that candidates for president (generically) should refuse to accept campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists; only 18% say it is okay to accept these donations.

Wow.  We are in really good company.

Gallup also asked how people felt about Hillary Clinton taking cash from Washington lobbyists with stunning results:

Even Clinton's base supporters -- rank-and-file Democrats -- say the New York Senator should refuse to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats say Clinton should refuse lobbyist contributions -- not much different than the 71% of Republicans and 75% of independents who share this point of view.

On previous occasions, when asked, Senator Clinton has said that she will continue to take campaign contributions from lobbyists who “represent real people”.  I guess folks aren’t buying that anymore.

If you’d like to be the next person to ask her about lobbyist campaign contributions, check out our guide to finding the candidates and getting real answers (otherwise known in the rabblerousing trade as bird-dogging).  Of course, we'd also like to ask all of the candidates to stop taking gobs of money from the special interests those lobbyists represent.

Will McCain Run on the Presidential Public Financing System?

Yesterday, McCain became the first candidate eligible to receive funding from the presidential public financing system, having applied to the Federal Elections Commission earlier in the month.  He has not yet said whether he will accept the matching funds. 

It could be a lifeline for his campaign and make the system once again functional in the primary.  However, it is a tough call for McCain’s campaign since the system badly needs updating and he would be the sole candidate running accepting the spending limits in exchange for the federal funds. 

The fact that the system is still being considered in the primary shows it’s not dead yet.   However, it also highlights the real need to breathe new life into the system so that it can be an asset to more of the qualified candidates who could opt in and stay competitive.  Read what must be done to improve it on White House for Sale.

Edwards Agrees to Opt In

Edwards is the latest candidate to agree to use the presidential public financing system if he is the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee also opts into the system. 

The Washington Post rightly gives Edwards kudos, and notes that he joins Obama and McCain in making the pledge. 

How about the others?

Until now Clinton has hedged, saying she would “consider” it.  Any candidate who says they support public funding of elections has an opportunity to walk the talk now.  Time to bird-dog.

Laura MacCleery on WVOX

Last week, Laura MacCleery, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, spoke to New Yorkers about the recently passed Lobbying and Ethics bill, the role of lobbyists in campaign fundraising, Fair Elections, and presidential bundlers.

Listen to her interview on WVOX.

They talk big, but will candidates deliver the fundraising transparency we need?

Originally posted on Laura MacCleery's diary at MyDD

Last night, Presidential hopeful Barack Obama reiterated once more that he does not take money from lobbyists:

OLBERMANN: Thirty seconds. Senator Obama, I know you and Senator Edwards have taken a firm stand against accepting money from lobbyists, yet you allow them to raise money for you and, as the phrase goes, "Bundle it." What's the difference between those things?
OBAMA: No, no. I do not have federal registered lobbyists bundling for me, just like I don't take PAC money.  (APPLAUSE) And the reason that's important is because the people in this stadium need to know who we are going to fight for. And I want to be absolutely clear that the reason I'm in public  life, the reason I came to Chicago, the reason I started working with  unions, the reason I march on picket lines, the reason that I'm  running for president is because of you... (APPLAUSE) ... not because of the folks who are writing big checks. And that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate.

Click here for full transcript. 

Presidential Candidates Debate Lobbyist Campaign Contributions

At the Yearly Kos convention this past weekend, presidential candidates sparred over accepting contributions from lobbyists (which would include having lobbyists as bundlers). They all agreed, however, on the need for public funding of elections.

Hearing on Fair Elections

Ordinary voters are being drowned out by corporate and wealthy special interests that co-opt our elected officials and raid the treasury for earmarks and tax breaks.  The result is policy for Big Pharma, Big Oil and Wall Street.  We can change all that with the Fair Elections Now Act.

The Senate Rules Committee is holding the first congressional hearing in more than a decade on publicly funded elections.

Watch it live on June 20, 10:00 a.m. EST!

Take a minute to become a Citizen Co-Sponsor of the bill and tell your Senators to break free from corporate and wealthy special interests.

Why do you think publicly funded elections are so important?

UPDATE: You can still watch the hearing at the link above.

Colbert on Revolving Door

The much touted lobbying & ethics bill is heading to committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions and one of the key provisions we have been fighting for may not survive.  Is it too much to ask for slightly stricter revolving door provisions?  Can't members of Congress wait one more year before they cash-in on K Street and turn around to lobby their former colleagues?

Apparently not.

Stephen Colbert finds this debate ridiculous.  Let's demand this reasonable and necessary reform.

Claybrook Conversation on Moyer's Blog

Joan Claybrook's post on the Bill Moyers Journal Blog is generating a lively conversation about the need for lobbying and ethics reform in Congress.  Not surprisingly, there are many reflections on the impact of corporate interests, and public funding of elections came up quickly as the ultimate antidote. 

You can check it out and join in, or pick up the thread here. 

If you haven't yet had a chance to see the "Cleaning House" segment of the Bill Moyers Journal that we announced here on the Watchdog Blog, you can watch it below:

Joan Claybrook and Bill Moyers on What’s at Stake

Tune in tonight when award-winning journalist Bill Moyers sits down with Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook for an in-depth examination of what makes the lobbying and ethics reform bill the single most important piece of legislation Congress can enact. Bill Moyers Journal airs on PBS. Check your local listings for the exact time of the broadcast or watch online afterwards and learn what is at stake.

Here’s a preview of the Moyers show.  Here’s what you can do.

What opposition?

This past week the House finally passed the long-awaited lobbying reform bill.  After months of wrangling, significant reforms in the relationship between lobbyists and Congress passed overwhelmingly. 

Check out Craig Holman's excellent piece in The Politico.  Here's what Craig has to say about those who fought the reforms:

The curmudgeons were those in the middle layer of the caucus – folks who have been around Capitol Hill for 10 or 20 years. Members such as Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) and Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.) railed against the reforms. These lawmakers have close fundraising relationships with the lobbying corps and perhaps also are eyeing million-dollar lobbying jobs in the near future. Hastings, now serving his eighth term, scoffed at the reformers, who “want Congress to be in sackcloth and ashes.”

The old bulls’ opposition was so vocal that Democratic leaders continued to water down the bill to buy their votes. In the most tragic cut of all, a back-room deal was worked out to strip the reform bill of its revolving door restrictions in exchange for a vote to send the measure to the floor. But Abercrombie et al. still continued to decry other provisions, such as the bundling disclosure, threatening to kill the measure on the floor.

Though these guys still voted against the reform bill, they were about the only ones. The measure passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 396-22.

This is a hard-won victory that we share with our allies in the House, our coalition partners, the voices of reason in the media and blogosphere, and most of all, with our very committed activists. 

Now let's make sure the members of the conference committee don't shred these reforms when joining the Senate and House versions of the bills.

Who’s the Best at Growing the Grassroots?

Check it out! The Hill newspaper recently published its list of the greatest growers of the grassroots and Public Citizen is featured three times; more than any other organization!

First, The Hill names Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook and suggests we “could have a lot more clout in a Congress that is aggressively targeting federal agencies and corporate America.”  We’ll keep the pressure up to ensure we accomplish as much as possible.

Second is Congress Watch Lobbyist, Craig Holman.  The Hill calls him “the go-to guy on campaign finance.”  Lean more about the span of his work from election reform and lobbying & ethics reform.

Last but not least, Global Trade Watch Director Lori Wallach rounds out the list of those who are mobilizing the grassroots.  "Since early in the Clinton administration, Wallach has been a key player," leading the fight for fairness and justice in global trade policy.

We must thank all of our dedicated activists who make our work effective and helping to create change.

Want to join our activist network?  Sign up here.

IRS Needs to Draw the Line on 501(c) Nonprofits

Word is spreading about nonprofits who do excessive electioneering, like Americans for Job Security. Public Citizen's Research Director, Taylor Lincoln, had this to say in a recent edition of Roll Call:

The passage of tax season offers an apt time to discuss one of the Internal Revenue Service’s lesser-known, but increasingly crucial, responsibilities: policing 501(c) nonprofit groups that violate their tax status by spending too much effort influencing elections.

The IRS has shown great reluctance to meddle in the electioneering affairs of nonprofit groups (except those registered as charities; more on that later). Its inaction now threatens to blow a gaping hole in the integrity of our campaign finance laws and sacrifice yet another election cycle to a soft-money arms race.

Dodd offers support for Clean Elections - Who's Next?

In the first Democratic presidential debate last week, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut separated himself from the pack as the only candidate who vocalized his support for Clean and Fair Elections.

According to Washington Post's David Broder:

Dodd, who has been in office longer than any of the other candidates, said it is true that he has accepted money from interest groups but insisted that he is a longtime advocate of public financing of campaigns.

Specifically, Dodd said:

We have already talked a bit about campaign finance reform. I’ve been a long advocate of public financing of campaigns. I believe this is one of the great threats to our country; that not enough people are qualified and want to seek public office. Put aside the presidency of the United States, talking even about congressional seats or local seats, it’s becoming prohibitive. Certainly, until the law changes, you have to do what you can to raise the resources.

No one knows more about the costs of our current financing system than incumbents.  Special interest money plays a major role.  And you better believe those special interests consider their campaign contributions a good investment.

Aside from removing the pressure to return favors to special interests, most candidates would prefer not to spend valuable time leading up to Election Day scrambling for a few extra dollars, but rather get their views out and motivate the electorate to cast their ballot.

Hopefully, we will hear more about the need for public funding from Dodd -- and the other candidates will stand up for a fundamental change, as well.

Supreme Court to Rule on Heart of McCain-Feingold

Round Two: Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC

In a striking victory for campaign finance reform, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 upheld nearly all elements of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). Public Citizen played a major role in pressuring Congress to enact BCRA and assisted in its legal defense. [McConnell v. FEC]

But we are back in court. Today, the court once again heard oral arguments in a case challenging the fundamental premise of the campaign finance law: the definition of a campaign ad subject to the contribution limits and disclosure requirements of election law.

Lift the “Secret Hold” on Transparency Bill

A block, a hold, an objection . . . there has been debate over what to call it, but the fact is that an anonymous Republican senator has put the brakes on S. 223 -- a bill to mandate that the Senate file its campaign finance reports electronically; making them more readily available for public view. 

There is nothing controversial about this bill and it has strong bipartisan support.  The House and the White House already have the same reporting requirements.  In fact, most senators maintain campaign finance records electronically, but are required to hand over paper copies nonetheless.  Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) explains the shenanigans:

The Senate campaign filing system in place today requires paper copies of disclosure reports to be filed with the Senate Office of Public Records, which scans them to make a digital copy and sends the copy to the Federal Elections Committee (FEC) on a dedicated communications line.  The FEC then prints the report and sends it to a vendor in Fredericksburg, Virginia, where the information is keyed in by hand and then transferred back to the FEC database – at cost of approximately $250,000 annually to taxpayers.

It is easy to understand why Senators Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) sought unanimous consent to bring the bill to the floor.  One can only assume that any senator who puts an anonymous hold on this bill has something to hide. 

Curious?  Help find the senator by calling yours and reporting it here.

Joan Claybrook at The New School

Check out a video of Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook's recent panel discussion at The New School.  The panel was well-attended – focusing on "How to Return Democracy to the People."  Joined by former lawmakers and political scientists, the vibrant discussion dealt with the burden on politicians to drum up campaign cash and  showed how full public funding for congressional elections would do a lot to end the money chase.  Joan was joined by former Senators Bob Kerrey and Warren Rudman, John Rauh of Americans for Campaign Reform, Costas Panagopoulos, PhD., and Brennan Center Executive Director Michael Waldman.

(If you have trouble viewing this video, try here.)

$28,500 per Couple...

This is what it costs to rub elbows with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and ten other important House committee chairs.

This week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee hosted the pricey event at the estate of Albert Dwoskin, a local real estate baron.

ABC News' Jake Trapper raises a valid concern:

"The event will be one of the highest-dollar fundraisers since the McCain-Feingold campaign finance limits were enacted in 2002 and it opens Democrats — who campaigned against the GOP's 'culture of corruption' last November — to charges of hypocrisy."

It's time to end this endemic hypocrisy by fundamentally changing the rules of the game.  The Fair Elections Now Act would do the job, allowing members of Congress to recuse themselves from the pay-to-play system we have today.

Who is Killing the Presidential Public Funding System?

Suspect #1: Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - He recently called for the abolishment of the presidential public funding system.  His defense is that presidential candidates are choosing not to opt-in and that the public doesn't want to pay for it. McConnell says fewer people are checking a box on the federal tax forms to give $3 to program.  Is it true that the public doesn't want to pay for this?  A poll from last summer showed that 74% percent of the public supports publicly funded elections.  They believe the cost of running for office is out of control and would rather it be paid for by the public than by special interests.  Also, many states and municipalities have passed public funding or “Clean Elections.”

Suspect #2: The Presidential Candidates - Current candidates have all decided to fund their campaigns from private sources.  Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is asking her biggest supporters to fork over $1,000,000.  At this rate, the 2008 presidential candidates could be expected to raise more than $500,000,000.  With these exorbitant entrance fees for the presidential elections, it is no wonder the public funding system can’t keep up.  No one in 1974 ever expected this kind of largess.

True-Blue Reformers losing their color

In 1995, we awarded a "True-Blue Reformer" award to 143 House members (43 Republicans and 100 Democrats) who voted for bills banning gifts and improving lobbying disclosure while voting against five amendments that would weaken the measures.  Last week, we sent a letter to those still in Congress saying their status as “true-blue reformer” is not “evergreen” given all of the corruption scandals that have gone under the bridge since 1995 and that the Public Citizen credential must be renewed with their decision to sign the Voters First Pledge.

As of this morning, one of the class of True Blue Reformers has now signed on, but the rest, including Tom Davis who still boasts of his 1995 honor on his Web site, have not yet responded.  Members of the 1995 “Reformers” group who do not sign the pledge by Oct. 15 -- this Sunday -- will have their True Blue credentials revoked.

What gives?  Look up your members of Congress on the Voters First Web site and make sure they have signed -- if not, call their office and ask them to sign on!

Has your candidate signed?

FIND OUT NOW

Conventional wisdom says our political system is too broken to be fixed.  That bribery and graft are here to stay.  That politicians cannot be trusted to do the right thing. This year, we started a campaign to change all that. 

Finally, after months of calling and emailing, we met (and exceeded!) our target and are releasing the names of who has signed the Voters First Pledge.

Right now, 300 candidates running for Congress have signed.  That’s 300 who pledge to: improve publicly-funded elections elections, support real lobbying reform, and create transparency for the fundraising done by lobbyists.

Today we held a national press conference to announce all of our success in getting 300 Congressional candidates to sign the Voter's First Pledge. Joan Claybrook, President of Public Citizen, laid out the facts for reporters.

Did your candidates sign?  Look up our results so far at the newly-launched Voters First Web site.

If any of your candidates are missing, its time to join the movement.  Take action by contacting your candidates for election and asking them to sign the Pledge.

Remember, the only real deadline is the election on November 7th.  Its not too late for candidates to sign.  Make a call or write an email to change their minds.

Or drop by their campaign headquarters, as the Director of Congress Watch did last Friday (read all about her adventures trying to sign up some Illinois candidates in person at their HQs).

Also, when you contact folks, tell us about it by writing an email to cleanupwashington@citizen.org.

Our current election system pushes candidates for Congress to sell out before they can get in.  Its time for a new day in American politics that will make politicians more accountable to voters than to wealthy special interests.

We can do it, with your help. Call your candidates and let us know how it went.  And be sure to check back before November 7th to see where your candidates stand on corruption and the public funding of elections. 

In Midst of Possible Turnover, Dems Fail to Impress

Roll Call (subscription only) reports Democrats have opened their arms to lobbyists and special interests.  With control of the House in reach, Democrats are eager to muster all the help they can get.  Likewise, Big Business and K Street want to avoid alienation if the House is turned over in November.

In an effort not to jeopardize their credibility or their effort to paint Republicans as “corporate handmaidens,” Democrats have steered clear of taking money from the less popular pharmaceutical and energy industries.

Or have they?

Democrat Benjamin Cardin, who is running for Maryland’s open Senate seat, has advertised he "always tries to do what's right...taking on the drug companies, the oil companies, and the insurance companies."  However, his campaign has received money from PACs representing those very industries, the Washington Post reports.

Republicans running as Washington outsiders have not fared better in refusing special interest funding.  Michael Steele, who has accepted $44,718 from the oil and gas industry, said it would not affect his aggressive environmental agenda.  Rep Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), who pledged to work with Steele on environmental issues, said it is tough not be influenced by where you get your funding from.

Perhaps it's not surprising--neither Cardin* or Steele have signed our Voters First Pledge.

*Correction: Cardin signed the Voters First Pledge on Sept. 5.

Supreme Court Rules on Campaign Finance - not a good decision, but not a disaster either

Just a few hours ago, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Vermont's campaign finance law of mandatory spending ceiling and low contribution limits. The decision is Randall v. Sorrell.

Though the decision is far from what I had hoped, it is not as bad as I had feared.

The bottom line is that this case upholds the state of current law on campaign finance. While the majority struck down Vermont's contribution limits, the Court made it very clear that it was not striking down all contribution limits and is instead following law that has been on the books since 1976.

In the 1976 landmark Buckley decision, the Court held that money is a form of speech, and that the First Amendment prohibits mandatory ceilings on political spending. However, the court ruled, campaign contributions could be reasonably limited because large contributions create the possibility or appearance of corruption.

In today’s case, the Court invalidated Vermont’s mandatory spending ceilings and also struck down the state’s very low contribution limits of between $200 and $400 per election cycle. The Court also made clear that reasonable contribution limits that do not starve campaign speech are permissible, such as those that are currently on the books at the federal level.

The decision means that little will change at the federal level and in most states. Perhaps the greatest damage may be to small states and local jurisdictions that have contribution limits lower than the federal standard. Montana — where it costs only $3,000 to run for state office — has contribution limits as low as $300. This is perfectly reasonable — only 10 contributors could supply enough money to run effectively for state office in Montana. But this law may now be subject to legal challenge, as well as other similar laws in local jurisdictions.

While this is not a good decision, it is not a disaster either. Perhaps the most reassuring aspect of the case is that the new justices appointed by President Bush — Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito — sided with the majority in making no new sweeping changes to the status quo. It was feared that the new justices might be willing to strike down all contribution limits. But this fear proved unfounded.

FEC ruling a victory for campaign finance reform and the internet

Two weeks ago, Clean Up Washington activists took action against a proposal to blow a huge loophole in campaign finance regulations on the internet. Thanks in part to our emails and phonecalls, the bill was pulled from consideration.

Today, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) dealt with this issue and passed what is generally a good regulation.

In its second attempt to grapple with campaign finance law and the Internet, the FEC finally stepped up to the plate and unanimously approved a reasonable regulation today that both protects the free speech rights of bloggers and preserves the integrity of the ban on soft money in federal elections. The FEC originally approved a regulation that poked a huge hole in the campaign finance law, allowing the unlimited use of otherwise illegal corporate and union money ("soft money") on the internet to promote or attack federal candidates. A federal district court rebuked the Commission and sent them back to the drawing board.

The final 96-page report on the regulation from the FEC's General Counsel can be summed up fairly succinctly: Paid political advertsiements placed on other people's Web sites must be paid for by money that is legal in federal elections -- that is, limited contributions from individuals and PACs. Political advocacy by bloggers on their own Web site is protected. Also protected is political advocacy via e-mail and of on-line media to avail themselves of the media exemption.

On the whole, the FEC regulation effectively strikes a fair balance. Hopefully, Congress wil recognize that the FEC has adequately dealt with the issue of campaign finance law and the Internet and will drop its effort to codify H.R. 1606, which would bring back the reckless soft money loophole that the FEC has now abandoned. (And if the anti-campaign finance reform contingent in the House does try to bring it up again, we'll be the first to let you know about it - and to take action!)

Campaign Finance Loophole Vote Happening Today

Later this afternoon, Congress will be voting on a measure that could blow a huge loophole in campaign finance law. There are two bills -- one good, one bad.

The bad bill is H.R. 1606, which allows unlimited "soft money"-- money from corporations, unions or wealthy individuals -- to be poured into internet ads for political candidates.

The good bill is H.R. 4900. This bill will protect the free speech rights of bloggers while preserving the ban on soft money for campaign ads on the Internet. H.R. 4900,  sponsored by Reps. Tom Allen (D-Maine) and Charles Bass (R-N.H.), has the backing of the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet as well as former Dean Campaign online manager, Nicco Mele.

Follow this link to email your Representative today! Check back on the blog tomorrow for an update on this important vote.

To learn more about this legislative attack on campaign finance law, and the legislative solution in H.R. 4900, click here.

-Jess Kutch

What's Happening in Congress with the Internet Bill

Bad news on the campaign finance front: The House Administration Committee this morning approved H.R. 1606, which allows unlimited "soft money" -- money from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals -- to buy campaign advertising on the Internet. This is a potentially devastating loophole in the current soft money ban, as campaigns come to rely more and more on Internet advertising.

The move came on a voice vote. Chairman Ehlers, Ranking Member Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, Rep. John Mica, Rep. Candice Miller, Rep. Robert Brady and Rep. Zoe Lofgren spoke, although they talked in general terms about protecting bloggers, rather than discussing the impact the bill could have on campaign finance law. Ehlers and Mica said they could imagine future corruptionarising if the bill is enacted, but said Congress could deal with those problems when they come up.

Rep. Lofgren commended a compromise proposal from the Center for Democracy and Technology that would protect both the integrity of the soft money ban and free speech rights of bloggers. Still, she said, the time is now to act on H.R. 1606. The CDT proposal has been introduced in the House as H.R. 4900 by Reps. Thomas Allen (D-Maine) and Charles Bass (R-N.H.).

Millender-McDonald did not reveal her position on H.R. 1606, and spoke to both protecting the Internet and the value of stopping soft money corruption. But no one attempted to substitute the good H.R. 4900 for the bad H.R. 1606.

H.R. 1606 will be on the House floor next week. The campaign finance reform community will be gearing up to kill the bill.

Can Bloggers Get Behind Regulation of Internet Campaign Advertising?

When Congress finally stepped up to the plate in 2002 and passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), it was a huge victory for those who want to curb the influence of special interest money in federal elections. Most importantly, the act prohibited federal candidates and the parties from raising and spending "soft money" -- money raised directly from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, sometimes in six-figure or greater sums. However, the law never clearly addressed use of soft money in campaign advertising on the Internet.

That could change soon.

For more than a year, civic groups, candidates, parties and bloggers alike have been struggling to develop a new policy for Internet campaign advertising that both maintains the soft money ban and protects political speech by bloggers and others.

Now, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) has done precisely that. CDT has issued a draft proposal that finds a bridge between the campaign finance reform the blogging communities. The proposal is being sponsored as legislation by Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine). The bill will be up for debate as early as the week of March 5.

You can read the proposal and supporting materials here.