Watchdog Blog

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.

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.

Big Corporate Influence is in the Bag

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Money Influence at the Conventions

Written by Zoe Bridges-Curry and Angela Canterbury.

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

                                                        - Bradley Smith, former Republican member of the FEC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Campaign Finance Reformers Open the Floodgates

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Obama's Answer

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

Read Obama's response printed in USA Today:

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

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

Candidates Still Not Disclosing: Public Citizen Demands More on Bundlers

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

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

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

Letters to the candidates can be viewed here.

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.

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.

Will McCain Run on the Presidential Public Financing System?

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

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

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

Edwards Agrees to Opt In

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

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

How about the others?

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

Laura MacCleery on WVOX

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

Listen to her interview on WVOX.

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

Originally posted on Laura MacCleery's diary at MyDD

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

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

Click here for full transcript. 

Presidential Candidates Debate Lobbyist Campaign Contributions

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

Joan Claybrook at The New School

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

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

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.

Clinton puts 'Rangers' to shame - Clinton Should 'Tell All' About Bundlers

Today, the Washington Post editorialized about Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) one-million-dollar ask of supporters for her presidential bid. This dwarfs the $200,000 which Bush asked prospective Rangers to raise. Every four years, the bar for presidential fundraising shoots skywards - 2008 will surely take us to new stomach-turning heights.

The Federal Election Commission sets contribution limits at $2,300 per person for the primary, and allows another $2,300 per person for the general election. Big donors get around these limits by driving truck loads of cash through a loophole known as bundling. It allows people (especially those of the lobbyist variety) to keep funneling money to candidates long after reaching their personal limit. Examples of bundling include lobbyist who host fundraisers or corporate CEO who ask employees to make donations.

If running for president means asking supporters to gather this obscene amount of money, the public deserves to know who the bundlers are, whose money they are bundling and how much they bundle. Both Bush and Kerry chose to tell the public this information in the 2004 election, but such disclosure of bundling is entirely voluntary. It should be mandatory.

Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) are co-sponsoring a bill (H.R. 633) that would require disclosure of bundling by lobbyists for all presidential and congressional candidates. The Senate already passed this measure in their lobbying and ethics reform bill (S. 1). You can take action here to ensure the House does the same.