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

Poll: Americans Oppose Forced Arbitration, Demand Corporations Be Held Accountable

Wide support exists across party lines for Arbitration Fairness Act; consumers, employees from around U.S. lobby lawmakers today

Washington, DC – Americans widely oppose corporations using mandatory binding arbitration clauses in the fine print of consumer and employment contracts, according to national polling of likely voters conducted by Lake Research Partners.

Forced arbitration clauses are hidden in the fine print of everything from cell phone, home, credit card and retirement account terms of agreement to employment and nursing home contracts. Just by taking a job or buying a product or service, consumers and employees are forced to give up their right to take their case to court if they are harmed by a corporation.

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

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

Deadline tonight: Tell your reps to vote for accountability in government

President Obama has asked Congress for a federal spending bill to get the economy moving again. Billions of tax dollars are already being spent in the bailout and billions more are needed to begin to dig us out of this financial crisis. But before we agree to this massive spending bill, we must know that someone will be watching the store. We must ensure that federal employees can blow the whistle waste, fraud or abuse - without fear of retaliation or reprisals!

We now have a chance to protect whistleblowers and make sure there is real accountability in the economic stimulus package! But we have to act quickly!

Two champions of accountability, Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Representative Todd Platts (R-PA), have offered an amendment to the stimulus bill that would restore and strengthen protections for federal workers who blow the whistle. This is the same bill that we have long supported and that passed the House with overwhelming support in 2007.

Congress is voting this evening on whether the economic stimulus should include protections for federal workers who blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse.

We need you to call your representative now and ask for support for federal government employees! You can find your member of the House here, or simply call the Capitol switchboard (202) 224-3121and ask for your representative.

Please tell your member of Congress to support federal employee whistleblower rights and vote yes on the Platts/Van Hollen Amendment today!

We’ve been fighting for these whistleblower protections for a long time. Passing the stimulus bill passes with these protections in place would be an outstanding victory for all of us who have fought for government accountability over the years. Please call your member of Congress today!

Let us know your thoughts on how your call went! Email us at action@citizen.org.

Obama’s Swift Actions Will Hold Government Accountable

Today, Public Citizen president Joan Claybrook lauded President Obama for swift actions to hold the government accountable. The statement follows:

President Obama campaigned with the promise of change, a commitment to government openness and a pledge to uphold high ethical standards. On his first full day in office, the new president showed a willingness to turn rhetoric into action.

After eight years of government in the shadows and preferential treatment of corporate lobbyists under his predecessor, President Obama’s directives and executive orders on presidential records, the Freedom of Information Act, transparency and open government, and ethics are not only important in restoring public access to critical information and holding government accountable, but they serve to reaffirm the hope our nation has in his presidency. By issuing strict rules on the future lobbying activities of his administration, President Obama slowed the revolving door that has allowed so many high-ranking government officials to enrich themselves at the public’s expense. And by emphasizing the openness of government records, the orders help to ensure that abuses of power will not go unnoticed and uncorrected.

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.

House Report Re-Confirms Abramoff-Bush Connection

For the second time, an investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), confirmed extensive communications between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is now serving a prison sentence, the White House and President George Bush. A September 2006 report by the same committee identified 485 contacts between Abramoff and the Bush Administration over the brief career of the scandal-tainted lobbyist; the new report identifies 70 additional contacts.

Despite vociferous denials by White House officials of knowing Jack Abramoff, including denials by President Bush, even the earliest of records demonstrated that Abramoff did indeed visit White House officials. Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff made at least two visits to the White House during the Bush administration, according to Secret Service logs released in 2006 under a court order. The logs did  not say with whom Abramoff met or what they discussed and "appear to be incomplete," said Tom Fitton, president of the watchdog group Judicial Watch, which requested the records.

The Department of Justice investigation of Abramoff, originally led by DOJ Public Integrity Section chief Noel Hillman, slowly but surely climbed the ladder from an investigation of Abramoff’s wire fraud to Sun Cruz investors in Florida to corruption in Washington, D.C. Most observers thought Hillman would stop the investigation with a conviction against Abramoff. But in January 2006, Washington was stunned by news that Hillman worked out a plea bargain with Abramoff, easing his sentence in exchange for information about bribery and corruption with lawmakers.

As the investigation by the Department of Justice showed signs of uncovering more of the Abramoff-Bush connection, Bush appointed Hillman to a judgeship in federal district court in Baltimore on January 27, 2006.

Whistleblowers: Best Defense Against Corruption

By Angela Canterbury. Originally published on The Hill's Congress Blog.

For years now, corrupt interests have co-opted our government for political gain and private profiteering. Our best line of defense when the law is ignored and regulation fails are the informed insiders who believe so strongly in the importance of accountability and saving taxpayer dollars - and often saving lives - that they are willing to risk their careers and safety to expose government wrongdoing.

It is a national disgrace that speaking out about government fraud, misconduct, waste and corruption is still such a risky endeavor. More often than not, whistleblowers suffer from some form of serious retaliation, including threats, demotion or outright firing for exposing wrongful conduct. Conscientious civil servants deserve strong statutory protections, not risk and intimidation. Yet many end up sacrificing because the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act has been interpreted and enforced in a way that weakens the protections Congress intended - protections that government whistleblowers desperately need.

It’s time to end the discrimination and retaliation - as well as the unmistakable and deeply chilling message it sends to all employees that they should keep quiet, or else. Congress should complete the marathon legislative effort to restore a credible Whistleblower Protection Act.

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.

Another Abramoff-related Conviction

The conviction of John Albaugh, staffer for "Representative #4" (Rep. Istook), for corruption in accepting gifts from Abramoff (meals, hotel suites, travel, sports tickets) represents the 14th conviction related to the Abramoff probe.

Following one fundraising dinner held at no charge at Abramoff's restarurant (Signatures), Istook called Abramoff at Albaugh's suggestion asking Abramoff "which particular projects [Abramoff's] clients want in the transportation bill," according to court documents ($).

And these lawmakers insist they cannot be bought for a dinner. [This one was an undisclosed fundraising dinner to boot.]

Abramoff continues to cooperate with authorities.

Von Spakovsky Withdraws Nomination

In a major victory for those who believe in free and fair elections, Hans von Spakovsky – a Republican nominee for commissioner on the nation’s elections agency – has withdrawn his nomination. Von Spakovsky’s nomination has been so contentious and volatile that it shut down the Federal Election Commission (FEC) since January. Now that he is gone, Congress can begin moving ahead and quickly reinstate the agency as we enter the second half of the election season.

As four seats of the six-member FEC expired this year, Hans von Spakovsky was nominated to fill one of the Republican slots, along with three other nominees.

But in an unprecedented five-page, single-spaced letter sent to the Senate Rules Committee, several top former career officials in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Voting Section complained about von Spakovsky’s service there as a political appointee, stating that he sought to undermine voting rights for partisan reasons. Von Spakovsky was instrumental in providing pre-clearance to a discriminatory voter ID requirement in Georgia. He also blocked a U.S. Attorney’s attempt to investigate a Minnesota rule that prevented American Indians who did not live on reservations from using tribal IDs as voter identification, and he supported Tom DeLay’s partisan redistricting in Texas. About half of the career lawyers in the Voting Section, some serving as long as 20 years in the office, left the Section under von Spakovsky’s watch.

Manufacturers Lose Bid to Evade New Lobbying Law

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) lost round one of their attempt to overturn the part of last year's landmark lobbying reform law which requires it to reveal the businesses funding the goliath lobbying organization.  Public Citizen, the Campaign Legal Center, and Democracy 21 filed an amicus brief [pdf] explaining how the disclosure requirement is constitutional, and should be kept intact.  U.S. District Judge Kollar-Kotelly agreed with us.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly dismissed NAM’s constitutional challenge, stating in her opinion:

The Court has conducted a searching review of the NAM’s opening brief, the Opposition filed by Defendant Taylor and the Opposition filed by the Legislative Defendants, the two amici briefs filed in this case by Citizens for Reform and Ethics in Washington (''CREW'') and Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, and Public Citizen (jointly the ''CLC Amici''), and the NAM’s Reply brief, as well as the relevant statutes and case law.

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.

Bush, Sunshine and Apple Pie

What does it mean to have an open government?  As a catch phrase, it is appealing, like apple pie.  It seems especially American and downright fundamental: “a government by and for the people.”  It suggests that we are in power, and that through transparency we can avoid tyranny and oppression.

In truth, it is an ideal – one for which we are still reaching.  The Constitution, and the First Amendment in particular, provides the principles, but it has taken the efforts of many over two centuries to create a legal and practical framework for some transparency in government.  We might prefer that our elected officials spend their time pondering how to make the government more accountable to the people (instead of fundraising), but unfortunately, this is rarely the case.  Often we have gained more access through legislation, such as the Freedom of Information Act, enacted in response to some crisis of trust in our public officials.

Now is such a time.

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.

Lobbyists Playing Bigger Role in Presidential Fundraising

The number of lobbyists raising money for the 2008 presidential candidates already has eclipsed the total for the entire 2004 campaign, according to a Public Citizen study released today.

So far, candidates still in the race have recruited 142 federal lobbyists to raise money for their campaigns, compared to 136 lobbyist fundraisers in 2004.

A clearinghouse of the 2008 presidential candidates’ big fundraisers is available at www.WhiteHouseforSale.org.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has 59 lobbyist-bundlers raising money for him, almost twice as many as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has the second-highest number. Among Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has garnered the most support from lobbyists, 20, a predictable outcome because her two main remaining competitors have eschewed support from individuals currently serving as lobbyists.

The roster of known lobbyist-bundlers for McCain grew substantially on Monday, when his campaign held a fundraiser at a tony Washington steakhouse. Among 29 co-chairs listed on an invitation for the event were 24 registered lobbyists. Lists of the lobbyists raising money for each candidate are included in the study’s appendix.

Download the Public Citizen study [pdf].

Congress Agrees to Disagree on Gift Rules

In what no longer comes as a surprise, the House ethics committee — contradicted by their colleagues at the Senate ethics committee — have poked another gaping hole in the new ethics rules.  The new ethics rules ban gifts of any value from lobbying organizations to lawmakers.  Both the House and Senate ethics committees were asked by a lobbying organization to rule on whether that organization may buy tables of seats at a charity event, and then suggest to the sponsors of the event to hand them over as gifts to lawmakers.

The House ethics committee said "yes."  The Senate ethics committee said "no."

Following the House committee's ruling on parties at the national conventions — in which the House ethics committee said that the new ban on lobbyists throwing lavish parties for a lawmaker at the national conventions does not apply if two or more lawmakers are honored at the party — it is becoming clear that we have a rogue House ethics committee that has not changed much since Tom DeLay.

Fair Elections Gets Stump Time

Our friends over at Common Cause highlight the recent Democratic debate in Nevada where public funding of elections got some air play.  Senator Obama explained: 

Ultimately, what I would like to see is a system of public financing of campaigns and I am a co-sponsor of the proposal that is in the Senate right now.  That's what we have to fight for.

Watch it.

In fact, all of the Democratic candidates have expressed their support for a congressional public funding system modeled on those in Arizona and Maine.  Senator Clinton announced her support back in April.

The publicity is great.  However, in the meantime, nearly all of the candidates could be doing a lot more to disclose where their private money is coming from.  Yesterday, we sent letters to candidates asking them (again) to make the information on how much money their bundlers are raising for their campaigns public. 

A keystone benefit of public funding is that special interest money can no longer buy influence with candidates.  Until we fix the presidential public financing system, the voters at the very least have the right to know who is bankrolling the candidates.

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.

Doolittle Quits

My favorite role model of an unethical Congressman, Rep. John Doolittle (R-Cal.) - who is under close investigation by the FBI for corruption (even had his house raided) - has decided not to seek another term of office and will retire in 2008. We hear he will make his announcement in about an hour.

Doolittle joins the ranks of a wave of members of Congress who have retired last year or will retire this year, following corruption scandals and the lobbying and ethics reform drive. There is still the possibility of conviction and another stint in a different public house awaiting Doolittle.

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.

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!

Bundlers Lurking in the Smoky Backroom Again in 2008

Bundlers bring more to the table than just cash. Just ask anyone on the receiving end of a Norman Hsu or Jack Abramoff special delivery. While not all bundlers will be as obviously scandal-tainted as a man wearing a bright yellow prison jumper, Hsu and Abramoff weren’t the first, and likely won’t be the last big fundraisers to bring along a little corruption with the loot.

Bundling is the new smoked-filled room of campaign fundraising. In fact, bundlers are starting to knock other means of financing right off the map. They are swamping the candidates with more money from than the frontrunners could possibly get from the presidential public financing system, thus helping to hasten its tragic demise.

Whether bundlers deliver $50,000 or $1 million, they expect something in return. The favor may be as simple as a photo opportunity that allows them to enhance their status with business associates, or it may be even more nefarious, like a government contract or tax break. In a world of six- and seven-figure campaign contributions, corruption and scandal may not be far behind.

Become a Bundler and Travel the World

WhiteHouseforSale.org has become the go-to source for finding out who is bundling for whom.

Many wonder what all these people are paying for. What happens to bundlers who “invest” in the winning candidate?  If Bush's treatment of his bundlers is any indication, then the current crop of bundlers can look forward to rewards like easy access to power and appointments to plum positions here and overseas.

Read and watch CBS's investigation of the bundlers behind the presidential candidates, including comments from Congress Watch division director Laura MacCleery.

What do bundlers get for all their dough?

Charles Swindells became Ambassador to New Zealand; John Palmer, the ambassador to Portugal. Charles Cobb's wife, Susan got the post for Jamaica. All raised at least $100,000.

What's most troubling about bundling is the common occurrence of industry shills buying their way into positions of power with piles of campaign contributions.  At the regulatory agencies, this cronyism can translate into relaxed enforcement, big tax breaks and special earmarks for big business.  It seems that bundling is a seriously good investment.

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.

White House for Sale on Counterspin

Laura MacCleery, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, was interviewed about the White House for Sale project on FAIR's CounterSpin last Friday, August 10th.

Listen to hear Laura explain the role of bundlers and the state of transparency thus far in the 2008 presidential election (roughly two-thirds of the way through the program).

Tying it all together

Yesterday morning, the Washington Post explored how the dash for cash puts pressure on lower level employees and others to pony up when the boss has signed on to financially support a candidate. The Post found that 526 secretaries, administrative assistants and executive assistants have contributed to the presidential candidates in the first half of this year, a roughly four-fold increase from the 127 donors with those occupations who contributed during the same time period four years ago.

In a somewhat dismissive aside, the Post cited Former Federal Election Commissioner Scott Thomas' reading that pressuring low-paid subordinates isn't even necessarily illegal as long as supervisors don't "facilitate" the donations. Bundlers would, however, be breaking the law if they are reimbursing their employees under the table. The paper seemed to be making light of what seems to be a credible explanation. What are we supposed to think when an employee, who may only take home $20,000 to $30,000 a year after taxes, is forking over as much as a tenth of their paycheck to a candidate?

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.

Congress Delivers on Lobbying and Ethics Reform!

Finally – real ethics reform passed in Congress!  Yesterday the Senate approved S. 1 – the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007” – with a veto-proof majority of 83 to 14. On Tuesday, the House also passed the bill with flying colors by 411 to 8.

This terrific legislation will give the public important new information about the cozy relationships between industry lobbyists and members of Congress, and limit the outrageous gifts and travel junkets that laid the groundwork for the culture of corruption on Capitol Hill.   

Today marks the final chapter of a long struggle. We first kicked off the drive to fix Capitol Hill over three years ago. Back then, our “wish list” of reforms was largely ignored by members of Congress and the media – even laughed at as a political impossibility. Then Jack Abramoff’s world – and that of many prominent members of Congress – started to unravel. 

As the investigations into kickbacks and bribes became indictments, our call for reform – and the increased public disgust with Washington – became more and more difficult to ignore. When Abramoff worked out a plea deal in January 2006 to name those whom he bribed to the FBI, you’d have thought the gig was up. But the leadership of the 109th Congress burrowed into the warm sand like ostriches and ignored the need for reform.  In return for their indifference, the voters changed up the Congress in 2006, citing corruption as a top concern.

But institutional change is hard even for a Congress elected on a promise to “end the culture of corruption.” As the bill moved forward, the “K Street” crowd lobbied hard, warning members not to bite the hands that keep lawmakers fat and happy. Public Citizen’s activists did not back down, sending thousands of faxes, emails and making hundreds of call to the Hill to tell Congress it must see this through.