Watchdog Blog

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