Watchdog Blog

Time to Put an End to the Paper Chase

Though presumably most senators (or their campaign staff) now use computers, they continue to file their campaign contribution forms on paper -- preventing us from learning quickly and easily how their campaign coffers are being filled and by whom.  The Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act (S. 482) would require Senate candidates to submit their campaign finance forms electronically, as House candidates already do. 

The bill could finally be up for a vote this week or next.  But, in spite of strong public support for the measure, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) has taken up the mantle from (recently embarrassed) Sen. Ensign (R-Nev.) to try and kill it by attaching an irrelevant and unconstitutional amendment.  Unbelievably, the Ensign/Roberts amendment would force nonprofit organizations to expose their donors when they file ethics complaints against senators.  We can't imagine which senators would vote for that one, but I suppose it could be interesting to find out. 

Please call your senators today and let them know the Roberts amendment is unconscionable and it's time to pass S. 482.  If you have another minute, you also may want to call Sen. Majority Leader Reid's office and ask that he bring this bill to the floor for a vote:  202-224-3542.

from Angela Canterbury and Glenn Simpson

Victory! Lobbyist No Longer Up for DOJ Nod

The news is in:  Mark Gitenstein is no longer being considered as a candidate to head the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy, according to the Huffington Post, Roll Call, and several other sources.  The concerns about this longtime corporate lobbyist that we first raised on February 2 and reported in yesterday's post apparently have been heeded. 

According to Roll Call, this decision has been confirmed by an administration official.

It's encouraging to see the Obama Administration standing by its ethics policy.

Ian Millhiser deftly captured the significance of this decision in his Huffington Post article:

Hopefully, this decision will serve as a cautionary tale to other ambitious and talented individuals who, despite a long career of progressive accomplishments, are tempted to work in support of practices as abusive as binding mandatory arbitration.

Our sentiments exactly.

Editorials, Conn.'s Experience Suggest Pro-Public Funding Sentiment

Barack Obama's $150 million haul in September so dramatically exceeded the $84 million grant he would have received had he opted in to the presidential public funding system that many pundits have declared the system moribund.

But a recent spate of newspaper editorials, the successful implementation of a public funding system in Connecticut and general disgust with the current regime among politicians suggest that sentiment in favor of public funding lives on, and may be increasing.

McCain-Feingold Reality Clashes With WSJ Narrative

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board on Wednesday leveled an oft-repeated but misleading attack on the law commonly known as McCain-Feingold. The Journal, an opponent of campaign finance reform, took a measure of satisfaction in arguing that John McCain's fundraising deficit is due to the very legislation he sponsored: 

The ultimate irony – perversity, if you're a Republican – is that the great champion for today's system is none other than John McCain. Having pushed for the government to limit money in politics, he is being outspent – and, should the polls hold, beaten – thanks in part to the laws he worked tirelessly to put on the books.

What the Journal and other drive-by critics of campaign finance reform miss is that McCain-Feingold was not really intended to limit money in politics and certainly was not intended to limit campaign contributions to candidates. The law actually doubled the maximum amount an individual could contribute to candidates, from $1,000 to $2,000 per election (a figure since adjusted for inflation to $2,300). 

What McCain-Feingold did was stop the political parties from accepting corporate or union contributions, which candidates were already prohibited from doing. An honest attack on McCain-Feingold would have to start with a claim that the country was better off with the political parties trading favors in exchange for corporate and union contributions of hundreds of thousands – and sometimes millions – of dollars (in 2002, for example, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lavished $4.2 million in soft money on the two major parties). 

If the Journal wants to make that argument, we would welcome the debate.

Voters Still in Line Behind Wall Street

Back in early July, we sent a request with a few of our partners in reform to every candidate running for Congress this fall urging them to sign the Voters First Pledge, a simple statement of support for legislation for a new system of pubic funding for congressional campaigns.  So far, nearly 220 candidates have made the pledge - but there are still many others who have yet to tell us where they stand.

So, we've sent yet another letter to candidates who haven't responded and have asked our members and activists to make sure the candidates in their districts know this is an issue they shouldn't ignore.  It's frankly hard to understand why a candidate wouldn't want to commit to change business as usual in Washington today.  The urgent need for reform is summed up neatly in the letter:

As the nation faces its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, now is the time for bold reforms to both the financial and political systems. Wall Street and powerful financial interests should not be funding campaigns for Congress if we want a political system that truly works for the American people. Public confidence in Congress is at an all-time low, and voters assume that both incumbents and challengers are under the undue influence of special interests.

Seeking big donations does not end with the campaign season - from their first day in office members of Congress must continue to dial for dollars.  The result?  Policies that favor Wall Street and not Main Street.  Public funding of campaigns would allow our elected officials to get off the fundraising treadmill and truly represent the interests of ordinary citizens.

Obama's Other Shoe Drops

There was much attention this weekend to the Obama campaign’s claim that it raised a whopping $150 million in September. This figure dwarfed the $84 million grant the campaign would have needed to live with for September and October if Obama had opted to participate in the public funding system, as McCain did.

But Obama evidently raised much more than even that. This weekend, Obama's joint-fundraising committee – which solicits money in Obama's name and funnels most of it to the Democratic Party – reported that it vacuumed up $69 million. The $69 million appears to be largely in addition to the campaign's purported $150 million bonanza, but we will not know for sure until the campaign issues its official September report, which is due tonight.

Contributors to Obama's joint committee are allowed to give up to $30,800, in contrast to the $2,300 maximum they can give to Obama's official campaign committee. More than 600 people wrote checks of at least $25,000 to the joint committee last month, the New York Times reports.

As we wrote on Thursday, Obama's rival for the presidency, John McCain, also has made significant use of these joint-committees, which are technically legal but make a mockery of the intent of campaign finance laws. McCain's joint committees reported last week that they raised $87 million between July and September, bringing their joint-fundraising total to $150 million.

Obama’s Mistake on Public Financing (and how McCain is skirting the law, too)

Originally by Andy Wilson at TexasVox.org

Today’s New York Times reported that life is not all peaches and cream for the Obama campaign after they opted out of the presidential public financing system.  (See Article “Straining to Reach Goal, Obama Presses Donors“)

Pushing a fund-raiser later this month, a finance staff member sent a sharply worded note last week to Illinois members of its national finance committee, calling their recent efforts “extremely anemic.”

The signs of concern have become evident in recent weeks as early fund-raising totals have suggested that Mr. Obama’s decision to bypass public financing may not necessarily afford him the commanding financing advantage over Senator John McCain that many had originally predicted.

But the campaign is struggling to meet ambitious fund-raising goals it set for the campaign and the party. It collected in June and July far less from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s donors than originally projected. Moreover, Mr. McCain, unlike Mr. Obama, will have the luxury of concentrating almost entirely on campaigning instead of raising money, as Mr. Obama must do.

It is not yet clear whether the Obama campaign will be able to ratchet up its fund-raising enough in the final two months of the campaign to make up the difference.

Public financing is a boon to any politician who accepts it, as it allows her or him to run free from the strings attached to big-dollar-donations and to focus the campaign’s time on where it should be spent: connecting with voters.  This is why when I explained Public Financing to Congressman Nick Lampson, currently running in the most competitive House race in the country, he was exuberant to think of a time when he would no longer have to dial for dollars. Considering the other two competitive House races in Texas, in CD 7 and 10, think of the race it would be if the campaigns were on equal footing moneywise and ideas, not dollars, affected the outcome of the race.

Lobbyists Trying to Hide in Plain Sight at the DNC

by Eric Encarnacion

Over the last month, we've talked about the pervasive corporate presence at the national conventions and the ways that big-money special interests will try to influence politicians through their stomachs and their general taste for the good life. Now, with the Democratic National Convention in Denver this week, the evidence is in: Corporations and their lobbyists are throwing lavish parties for lawmakers. They're hard to miss, as the mainstream media has started covering them.

Crashing the Convention Parties

The Democratic Party Convention is now in full swing. As you might imagine, it's quite the jet-set party scene, with well-heeled lobbyists and corporate CEOs schmoozing with our members of Congress and other luminaries.

Like you, we're sick of special interests coming before voters - just look at the mess we're in thanks to this pay-to-play system. Big Oil, Big Pharma and other corporate titans have had their way with our government for too long.

That's why we're crashing their parties!

Lobbyists gone wild!

By Joe Newman, originally posted on Citizen Vox.

How much would you need to throw a great party for several thousand friends? Imagine what you could do with $1 miilion. The possibilities boggle the mind.

I’m thinking little meatballs served with 14-carat gold toothpicks. Now, imagine if you had $112 million at your disposal. That’s how much money corporate sponsors and lobbyists are contributing to this year’s Democratic and Republican conventions, events that have become less about the American political process and more about seeing who can throw the most lavish soirees.

A report released today by Public Citizen shows how corporations and lobbyists are exploiting loopholes in election law and congressional ethics rules to turn the conventions into a place where they can wine and dine lawmakers and lobby them away from Capitol Hill.

Some of these parties appear to cross the line and put lawmakers who attend in violation of their ethics rules, the report says. You can learn more and read the Public Citizen report at www.SayNoToLobbyists.org.

Big Corporate Influence is in the Bag

When the welcome bags for the 2008 DNC national party convention were revealed earlier this month, bloggers took notice. Why? Because the bags are covered in corporate logos.

As blogger and New York Times Bestselling author Glenn Greenwald points out, the national party is making little effort to conceal which companies are financing the convention, instead placing their logos unabashedly on the bag that every delegate and member of the media will receive when they arrive at the conventions [Salon.com, July 20, 2008].

But the benefits of corporate sponsorship go well beyond prominent advertising on welcome bags. A quick look at the sponsorship packets that the host committees give to possible sponsors betrays the true purpose of corporate sponsorship - a guarantee that big-money contributors will have special access to elected officials attending the conventions. The fact that corporate donors have been so reluctant to disclose the exact amount of their contributions further suggests that their interest in sponsorship is far from benevolent.

The Denver host committee packet promises donors who give more than $500,000, "Platinum" and "Presidential" sponsors, access to premier Denver venues for corporate hospitality events and receptions. The Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) has reported that the original Minneapolis St. Paul host committee packet offered top sponsors a golfing outing with Republican leadership, in addition to a reception with local party officials and US Senator Norm Coleman.   

Though these perks were removed from the packet following a number of critical articles in local and national media, the fact remains that the primary benefit that host committees offer to corporate sponsors is exclusive access to decision makers. To ensure that ordinary voters have a voice at the conventions, Congress must act to close the conventions soft-money loophole.

Learn more about corporate sponsorship of the conventions and take action today!

Big Money Influence at the Conventions

Written by Zoe Bridges-Curry and Angela Canterbury.

"I look forward to the day, by 2008, when Americans can turn on their TVs and watch the Nokia Democratic Convention, or the AT&T Republican National Convention."

                                                        - Bradley Smith, former Republican member of the FEC

What happened to putting voters first?  Well, yesterday, our own Craig Holman threw down the gauntlet and told CQ [$] that campaign finance and ethics watchdogs will be out in force, keeping tabs on the events and making noise over rules violations.

Campaign finance laws like the Fair Elections Campaign Act (FECA) were created in part to end the undo influence of corporate donors.  Contradicting the spirit of these laws, political parties continue to use the national party conventions to secure millions of dollars in corporate contributions, funneling contributions through the supposedly nonpartisan host committees.  The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has even approved this maneuver, thereby allowing wealthy corporations privileged access to elected officials at the conventions.

For the political parties, the conventions are the perfect opportunity to circumvent existing restrictions on soft-money donations, because donors can make lavish contributions to the conventions’ host committees. A report recently released by the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI), estimated that approximately 80% of the estimated $112 million needed to hold the conventions will come from private donors, primarily large corporations.

As both the report and a quick visit to the DNC convention website make clear, in return for sizeable donations, host committees for both parties offer corporations and other big donors exclusive access to elected officials at the conventions.  The greater the donation, the greater the access to advertising opportunities and influential convention attendees. In his talking points for meeting with potential corporate donors, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota offered corporations the chance to “connect with influential government officials (Cabinet, President, next President)” [New York Times, June 7, 2008]. An added bonus for donors: corporate donations to the host committee are tax deductible, meaning that, ultimately, it is taxpayers who subsidize corporate privilege at the conventions.

The CFI report documents that “Presidential” donors who give $1 million to the DNC Convention receive VIP access to the Pepsi Center convention hall and all Host Committee-sponsored events, numerous advertising opportunities, and the opportunity to attend private events with Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, U.S. Senator Ken Salazar, and other party officials. As advertised in brochures given to potential donors, corporate donors to the GOP Convention receive similar perks for a $5 million donation.

To ensure that voters’ voices are not drowned out by big-money interests, it is crucial that Congress act to prevent unlimited soft-money donations to convention host committees and to ensure public financing for elections.

Take Action! Tell your members of Congress to comply with existing ethics laws at the conventions.

Campaign Finance Reformers Open the Floodgates

By David Arkush and Craig Holman. Originally published in Roll Call ($).

The presumptive presidential nominees, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), are exploiting a major loophole in the campaign finance law. Both Senators are setting up joint fundraising committees that allow the wealthy to donate $70,000 or more on behalf of their campaigns.

You might wonder how this squares with the $2,300 limit on contributions from individuals - contribution limits that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 sought to protect by banning large soft-money contributions.

Heres how McCain Victory 2008, one of the candidates new joint fundraising committees, is accepting $70,100 from donors: The first $2,300 is treated as a contribution to the McCain campaign. Then, $2,300 goes to McCains compliance fund. The next $28,500 is earmarked for the Republican National Committee. And the remainder - up to $37,000 - is split between the Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico and Wisconsin Republican parties.

McCain set up at least six joint fundraising committees. Obama announced on April 25 that he, too, will set up a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee.

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.

Fair Elections Action Week

The Fair Elections Action Week is coming up in just a few weeks!  People are taking action now so that we can show Congress that Americans want an end to pay-to-play politics by instituting a system of public financing.

We are closer than ever to cleaning up Washington.  The Fair Elections Now Act is gaining support in the Senate and we anticipate the introduction of the companion bill in the House to happen very soon!  A voluntary system of public funding for congressional elections would allow members of Congress to serve without taking huge sums of special interest money.  Elections should be about voters, not campaign cash.

Join us for the Fair Elections Action Week on November 12-16 when we will send a strong message to Congress that it's time for public funding of elections!  Actions and events will take place all over the country – some sponsored by Public Citizen and our coalition partners, others happening in the living rooms and kitchens of people ready for a change.

It’s easy to help make it a success by showing your support and spreading the word now!

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

Clinton Is Ready to Break Free

This just in from the Associated Press . . .

(AP) A day after her campaign announced a record breaking fundraising haul, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she would support public funding of campaigns if elected president next year.

At an event where she picked up the endorsement of New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, the New York senator said she would continue the fundraising pace that helped bring in $26 million for her presidential bid between January 1 and March 31. But, Clinton said, she hoped a different system could one day be enacted.

"I believe we have to move, eventually in our country, toward a system of public financing that really works for candidates running for federal office. I will support that as president," she said. (more)

Now, will the other presidential candidates pledge to support a system of public funding of elections like Fair Elections?

The Solution to the Money Problem Introduced

Today Public Citizen joined with congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle and a broad coalition of civic groups to uproot the problem of money in politics. Senators Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) announced the introduction of the Fair Elections Now Act [listen] to establish public funds for senatorial elections.  This bold and important bill would transform federal elections for the U.S. Senate from a business enterprise into a contest of ideas focused on our nation's challenges. 

It’s plain that the cost of campaigns for Senate (and all other offices) is out-of-sight.  Over the last past three election cycles, the average cost of the 10 most expensive Senate races has more than doubled, from $16.9 million in 2002 to $34.9 million in 2006.  This escalation in costs continues today, and candidates will have to spend more and more time trying to raise enough money to compete.  Enough is enough.  We cannot allow our government to keep spiraling out of the hands of ordinary Americans.

The Fair Elections Now Act would create a voluntary system through which participating candidates - those who establish their credibility by collecting enough qualifying contributions and who then pledge not to accept private contributions - would receive public funds for the primary and general elections.  Participants would also be eligible for free media vouchers and discounted commercial advertising rates.  The bill is patterned on successful efforts to reduce the impact of money on the election process in Arizona, Maine, and elsewhere.

Public funding of congressional elections is a huge break for the American taxpayer. It would cost just a fraction of one percent of the annual federal budget. But it would produce lawmakers who would not feel obligated to repay donors with costly tax loopholes, special earmarks and other boondoggles that drain billions of taxpayer dollars from the Treasury.

Last year, we fought to clean up the corruption in Washington. The public took notice, and then took action, culminating on November 7, when voters chose to put an end to the culture of corruption.  The new Congress is responding to the call for change by debating a variety of worthwhile ethics and lobbying reforms. 

Some of these first-line improvements are expected to pass in the coming weeks - but none of these will lower our gas prices, the cost of prescription drugs or student loans  - all inflated by tax-breaks and special corporate giveaways served up by lobbyists and well-heeled contributors. 

The only lasting antidote to the corrupting influence that comes with privately funded elections is to publicly fund them with a system of fair and clean elections.  Thanks to Senators Durbin and Specter, we are on our way to a brighter future.

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.

Lobbyists shrug off lobbying reform efforts -- more fundamental solution needed

The new Congressional session has not yet begun, but this hasn't stopped members from holding out the donation cup to lobbyists. According to The New York Times, restaurants and bars across Capitol Hill have been booked so lobbyists can have the opportunity of paying anywhere from $250 to $5000 just for the chance to meet and greet politicians from the incoming 110th.

From veteran Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to Sen.-elect Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), members are opening doors to special interest money to pay off their campaign debt and/or build up war chests for the next election cycle.

This is disappointing. After all we heard about ending Abramoff-esque corruption and changing the tide in Washington, you would think Congress might wait a little  before soliciting funds from wealthy special interests.

Some lobbyists are also disapponted. Former Republican Representative, Norman Lent (D-N.Y.), lamented the bad rap Abramoff gave to honest lobbyists like himself. Mr. Lent represents Big Oil and Big Pharma.

Not all lobbyists are concerned about lobbying and ethics reform pushed by Pelosi, et al. Erick Gustafson, who represents the Mortgage Bankers Association noted cynically that:

"There will some changes on the margin that will be relatively short-lived...It's like trying to keep water out of your basement. It's a structural problem. You may find a temporary solution, but the water will find a way in. Influence is like water. Money is just a means of influence."

We agree that candidates running for office have little choice but to take campaign contributions from special interests because the cost of running is exorbitant and rising each cycle. 

But there is an alternative already in place in several states and cities across the country: publicly funded elections. If that system was in place for federal campaigns, candidates running for Congress who opt in would not owe anyone favors because the money they use would come straight from the voters.

Instead of dialing-for-dollars and meeting with lobbyists, politicians could spend more time serving the public. I think we would really get our money's worth. 

See Clean Elections in Action

Tonight, tune in to your local PBS station to catch an hour-long special about clean elections called "Votes for Sale?"  Learn more about how the public funding of elections works by seeing it in practice.  Watch the trailer below.

Clean Elections in Calif.; Prop. 89

Californias are taking a stand against the influence of special interests in their state.  Proposition 89 is a ballot initiative for clean elections.  Watch the ad below and learn more about it here.

My Trip to Chicago

Last week, when I was visiting Chicago, Nick Nyhart of Public Campaign and I got inspired to take the pledge campaign to the streets.  We decided to “field-test” the Voters First Pledge by toting along a blown-up poster of the pledge to a couple of candidates for election this November and telling them all of the excellent reasons that they should sign on.  We were closest to the campaign HQs of Tammy Duckworth, a Democratic candidate, and Peter Roskum, a Republican and former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay.  Both are vying for the open seat vacated by Rep. Henry Hyde in Illinois’ fifth district.

We were joined in the effort by Aileen, a local member of the Public Campaign.  We found the Duckworth campaign office in a small strip mall and approached with the poster.  Inside, people were a little taken aback until we finished up the introductions and walked them through the elements of the poster-sized pledge.  The campaign manager for Duckworth was gracious, told us that he had reviewed the pledged with the candidate and that she would sign on.  He pulled papers out of the back office to which Duckworth had attached a statement of her views and had us push the fax machine button to send them through.  Another pledge on record!

We next ventured on to visit the Roskum headquarters.  It was in a small house in a residential area, with a Mercedes parked out front.  The reception there was far chillier.  Once inside, an office manager appeared who summarily informed us that the candidate and campaign manager were gone. She did allow us to leave the large pledge behind in the entry way to the office and thanked us for visiting as she closed the door.

Overall, a pleasant experience! Everyone should drop by a campaign office, or email and call candidates and ask them to sign the pledge. You never know what will happen until you try.

It's the public financing, stupid!

In a surprising development, The Hill reported yesterday that Republican Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) has been discussing public financing of congressional elections with Democratic Sens. Richard Durbin (Ill.) and Christopher Dodd (Conn.), and might join them in co-sponsoring  a public financing bill. Said the prescient GOPer: “Maybe it is the answer. Too much of our time is spent raising money, time spent campaigning, time buying TV ads. Everyone’s out there trying to raise money… until we deal with this issue, you’re going to continue to have problems.”

Give that man a cigar! We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

While any public financing plan will face an awfully tough slog in a Congress so controlled and corrupted by special interest money, the support of a vocal Republican senator promises to change the dynamic considerably. A related problem that will need to be tackled is the strange disconnect, reviewed here by Kevin Drum, between the popularity of public financing for state elections and the perception here in Washington that the public hates the idea. Hmmmm. Could members of Congress perhaps be getting their information from corporate lobbyists?

Back to Voinovich for a final thought: it’s worth noting that in addition to considering public financing, he is also talking up lack of enforcement of current lobbying rules.

“How are we enforcing our laws? Things are filed, and, in some cases, nothing’s done about it,” Voinovich lamented, calling the notion of exempting lobbyist-sponsored fundraisers from the congressional gift ban “ridiculous.”

Once again, we couldn’t agree more. The irony here, though, is that the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics is none other than… yes, you guessed it… Sen. George Voinovich! So what IS up with that whole enforcement thing, George?

-Gordon Clark