Watchdog Blog

Time to Put an End to the Paper Chase

Public Citizen — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:53:59 -0400

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

Insider Trading: How Congress Can Make Big Bucks at Our Expense

Public Citizen — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:49:03 -0400

It has been a difficult start for the financial services sector thus far in 2009 - yet it may be even more difficult to excuse the multitude of bad decisions made by Wall Street already (refusing to release information about bailout spending, Bank of America's $10 million super bowl ads, obscenely large bonuses for AIG executives...the list goes on). Thankfully, it looks like Congress and the federal government are finally getting more serious about oversight of Wall Street and the financial sector.

Now also would be a good time to put an end to secret spending and insider trading immunity for government officials.

A recent piece of legislation proposes to do just that. Introduced by Reps. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY) and Tim Walz (D-Minn.), the “Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act” (H.R. 682) would ensure that those with access to privileged "non-public information" gathered through oversight proceedings would not be able to use that information for personal benefit in securities and commodities trading.

Specifically, H.R. 682 would negate a little-known loophole in the law which could allow members of Congress as well as executive staffers and government officials to practice insider trading in order to enrich themselves as well as their associates. Of course, this type of insider trading would be wholly illegal for citizens like you and me.

The act would also be effective in combating corrupt lobbying practices, since lobbyists and stock traders ("political intelligence consultants") who haunt the halls of Congress precisely in order to glean insider tips from staff would also be banned from insider trading.

The legislation would require members of Congress and their staff to disclose stock transactions of $1,000 or more within 90 days, and require “political intelligence consultants” to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act and disclose their financial activities.

The time to pass this legislation is now, before our tax dollars pay for any more lucrative insider investments.

Posted by Craig Holman

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

Taylor Lincoln — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:29:18 -0400

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.

The Baltimore Sun, Philadelphia Inquirer and Orlando Sentinel all editorialized in recent days in favor of updating the presidential public funding system to make it viable. Candidates who participate in the system receive matching funds in the primary season and a government grant for the general election. In exchange, they agree to spending limits for the primaries and not to spend money beyond their grant for the general. The primary election system cratered in 2000, when then-Gov. George W. Bush opted out and far outraised the limits he would have otherwise faced. Obama has become the first major party nominee to opt out for the general election.

Meanwhile, there are signs that public funding, in general, might be enjoying a renaissance. The New York Times this week reported that Connecticut's fledgling public funding system for state elections is experiencing high levels of participation by incumbents and challengers alike:

At a time when roughly half the states are seriously considering public financing of campaigns, Connecticut’s initial experience has exceeded the expectations of even its most enthusiastic supporters. Of the 343 candidates running in General Assembly elections, 258 — about 75 percent — are seeking public financing.

Also in Connecticut, Republican Rep. Chris Shays and his democratic challenger, Jim Hines, both endorsed public funding for congressional elections.

McCain-Feingold Reality Clashes With WSJ Narrative

Taylor Lincoln — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:16:06 -0400

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

Eric Encarnacion — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:41:04 -0400

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.

As our letter points out, public financing of elections is an issue that resonates with voters:

• Seventy-four percent of voters surveyed in 2006 said they supported voluntary public funding of federal elections, with a mere 16 percent opposing it.

• The support was across party lines, with 80 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of Republicans, and 78 percent of independents – a remarkable degree of support across the spectrum.

• When presented with an unnamed candidate with no party identification, favorable ratings increased dramatically when voters were told the candidate pledged to support public funding of campaigns – and dropped dramatically when told the candidate refused to pledge support for public funding. This was tested against typical issue profiles for Republican and Democratic candidates, clearly demonstrating the power of this issue push voters towards or away from candidates, even when combined with other policy positions favored by those voters.

We're giving candidates until noon on this Wednesday, October 22 to sign the pledge. Then we're going to announce who's committed to real change in politics.

Curious if you're member of Congress has signed the pledge? You can find out here and then you can give them thanks or tell them it's time to put Voters First!

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

Public Citizen — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:12:46 -0400

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.

And, if you don’t think that money doesn’t change policy, think again. Every issue, from the War in Iraq to Consumer Protection to Global Warming to Education has powerful monied interests who are willing to pour money into the debate to get what they want.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, McCain, once a champion of campaign finance reform, is still soliciting donations to his campaign, even though he has already accepted public financing money. A loophole allows the campaign to get money for “compliance” issues, but really it’s a backdoor for the same kind of big money influence peddling we’ve seen so far, as recently as the last two weeks at the GOP and Dem Conventions.

Kate Kaye, the author of the blog who brought this to our attention, explained it best:

According to a disclaimer on the McCain campaign site, “Because the McCain-Palin Campaign is participating in the presidential public funding system, it may not receive contributions for the any candidate’s election. However, federal law allows the McCain-Palin Campaign’s Compliance Fund to defray legal and accounting compliance costs and preserve the Campaign’s public grant for media, mail, phones, and get-out-the-vote programs. Contributions to McCain-Palin Victory 2008 will go to the Compliance Fund, and to participating party committees for Victory 2008 programs.”

That Victory fund is operated by the compliance fund, the Republican National Committee, and the Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania GOPs.

Hmmm…I wonder what states are in the most contention this year….

The lesson is clear: we should support full, airtight public financing NOW and we should make our leaders accept it– a “Great divorce” of Money and Politics.

Obama originally opted out of public financing by citing that the presidential system was “broken” and that he had created a “parallel public financing system” via the netroots. This, along with McCain’s continued fund-raising, is an argument to shore up the presidential system, not scrap it.

We can pass full public financing laws. We can keep elections fair at the local, state, congressional, and federal level. Currently, the Fair Elections Now Act sits idle in Congress with some serious inertial problems. We should change that, and call our leaders and ask them to sign on to Fair Elections. We can make it a priority of the next Congress, insuring that future elections are clean and fair.

Lobbyists Trying to Hide in Plain Sight at the DNC

Public Citizen — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:12:52 -0400

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.

As ABC News has highlighted in its "Money Trail" segments, corporate lobbyists are sparing no expense in wining and dining our elected officials. Many are skirting new Congressional ethics rules with a wink and a nod. Top Denver chefs are preparing special dishes -- even inventing special spoons and flatware! -- so that dinners can qualify for a loophole in congressional ethics rules. Concerts and shows are being restructured on paper so that they're classified as "charity events" (complete with exclusive side entrances for elected officials!).

Two videos from ABC News provide a great overview. Featured in the clips are our friend Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation and our very own ethics expert, Craig Holman.

So what can you do to help keep our leaders focused on voters rather than corporate special interests? Learn more and take action at SayNoToLobbyists.org.

Crashing the Convention Parties

Public Citizen — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:35:54 -0400

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!

A gaping loophole is being exploited and millions of unregulated dollars are being funneled to the national party conventions through so-called nonpartisan "host committees." These committees claim to be helping Denver and the Twin Cities, but they are really just using the sizable donations for political purposes.

As we blogged previously, a new Public Citizen report reveals the extent to which political access is being bought by the "host committee" sponsors. As an added bonus, this type of influence peddling is also tax-deductible for donors like AT&T.

Our campaign finance laws need to be enforced. These loopholes must be closed. There will be dozens of events at both conventions sponsored by deep-pocketed special interests seeking to influence our elected officials.

As The Hill reports, we've joined forces with other watchdogs to show up at these corporate-sponsored soirees and ask some tough questions about potential violations of our campaign finance and ethics laws.

You can help. If you can be in Denver this week or the Twin Cities next week, then you can join our other party crashers in making sure the big wigs get the message that it's time to put voters first!

Here's more info on the party scene. Can't make it to the conventions? You can follow some of the crashing here and at Party Time, throw your own party, or take a few minutes to take action. To learn more, check out www.SayNoToLobbyists.org.

Lobbyists gone wild!

Public Citizen — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:18:41 -0400

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.

The Sunlight Foundation’s blog Party Time and the Campaign Finance Institute provide excellent resources to keep up with all the shenanigans. Party Time even has a list of the entertainment the Dems lined up next week in Denver, as well as how the GOP will get down later in the Twin Cities.

Looks like a lot of parties and not much real business. It all adds up to a week-long TV commercial for the candidates, bought and paid for by corporate America.

Don’t think for a minute, though, that these companies and lobbyists pony up all this cash without some sort of return on their investment. The underlying message to lawmakers is clear: Eat, drink, enjoy the show. Have a good time on us. And remember how well we treated you when we come calling about that legislation we don’t like or that government contract we want.

Want to know what you can do? Take action. Tell Congress to put voters first! Urge your members of Congress to stay away from big money at the conventions and honor our campaign finance and ethics laws.

Big Corporate Influence is in the Bag

Zoe Bridges-Curry — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:32:28 -0400

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

Public Citizen — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:45:13 -0400

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.