Friday, December 05, 2003
Philadelphia City Council Passes Weak Reform
The Philly Inquirer reports here that their City Council has passed an ordinance limiting campaign contributions to $1000 from individuals and $5000 from Political Action Committees (PACs.) I guess these folks didn't learn much from our federal experience, which until recently had similar limits for federal candidates. President Bush showed it was no problem for well connected candidates to raise huge amounts of money under $1000 limits through his Pioneer operation that gave him a huge edge of candidates such as John McCain in the 2000 presidential primary. I doubt that many citizens of Philadelphia can afford to give $1000 to a city council race, so its hard to see how the new ordinance would return government to the regular citizens of the city of brotherly love. It remains to be seen whether the Mayor will approve or veto the proposal.
The Philly Inquirer reports here that their City Council has passed an ordinance limiting campaign contributions to $1000 from individuals and $5000 from Political Action Committees (PACs.) I guess these folks didn't learn much from our federal experience, which until recently had similar limits for federal candidates. President Bush showed it was no problem for well connected candidates to raise huge amounts of money under $1000 limits through his Pioneer operation that gave him a huge edge of candidates such as John McCain in the 2000 presidential primary. I doubt that many citizens of Philadelphia can afford to give $1000 to a city council race, so its hard to see how the new ordinance would return government to the regular citizens of the city of brotherly love. It remains to be seen whether the Mayor will approve or veto the proposal.
Thursday, December 04, 2003
Mr. Smith Gets Bribed in Washington
Nick Smith is a member of Congress from Michigan. Recently, Congress passed a controversial bill to provide some prescription drug coverage to seniors. A lot of congressmen felt it was a bad bill, for various reasons. Nick Smith was one of them. So far, nothing shocking.
But, Timothy Noah reports here in Slate magazine that the political leadership of his own party tried to twist Mr. Smith's arm and get him to vote for the bill against his better judgment. Mr. Smith is retiring, so he may not care if he angers the House leadership. But, his son is running for his seat and may be in for a tough race. So, corporate interests told Nick that they would funnel $100,000 to his son's campaign if he voted their way on the bill.
Timothy Noah suggests that this is amounts to an attempt to bribe Mr. Smith. It is unseemly indeed if special interests were trying to sway a legislator's better judgment by offering something he valued. But really, this misses the deeper problem.
Nick Smith didn't take the bribe. He voted against the bill and doesn't seem to regret it. The real crime against democracy may be yet to come, as those same special interests may now give the $100,000 to defeat Nick's son. Duke Cunningham, a California politician, told Nick that his son was now "dead meat."
So, this is a race to watch. If Nick's son is as honest and upstanding as his father, there's a decent chance that the big money boys will make sure he never makes it to Washington. Instead, he'll be replaced by some corporate stooge who will be more than happy to toe the line of his party leadership, whether bribed or not. This is how money undermines our democracy in a way far more profound than petty bribery. We are replacing honest men with groveling politicians, and our governments integrity is in shambles as a result.
Arnold's Out of State Fundraising to Pay off His Personal Loans
See this KCRA Channel 3 story that voices my concerns with Arnold Schwarzenegger's fundraising to pay off personal loans to his campaign -- an apparent violation of existing campaign finance law.
Nick Smith is a member of Congress from Michigan. Recently, Congress passed a controversial bill to provide some prescription drug coverage to seniors. A lot of congressmen felt it was a bad bill, for various reasons. Nick Smith was one of them. So far, nothing shocking.
But, Timothy Noah reports here in Slate magazine that the political leadership of his own party tried to twist Mr. Smith's arm and get him to vote for the bill against his better judgment. Mr. Smith is retiring, so he may not care if he angers the House leadership. But, his son is running for his seat and may be in for a tough race. So, corporate interests told Nick that they would funnel $100,000 to his son's campaign if he voted their way on the bill.
Timothy Noah suggests that this is amounts to an attempt to bribe Mr. Smith. It is unseemly indeed if special interests were trying to sway a legislator's better judgment by offering something he valued. But really, this misses the deeper problem.
Nick Smith didn't take the bribe. He voted against the bill and doesn't seem to regret it. The real crime against democracy may be yet to come, as those same special interests may now give the $100,000 to defeat Nick's son. Duke Cunningham, a California politician, told Nick that his son was now "dead meat."
So, this is a race to watch. If Nick's son is as honest and upstanding as his father, there's a decent chance that the big money boys will make sure he never makes it to Washington. Instead, he'll be replaced by some corporate stooge who will be more than happy to toe the line of his party leadership, whether bribed or not. This is how money undermines our democracy in a way far more profound than petty bribery. We are replacing honest men with groveling politicians, and our governments integrity is in shambles as a result.
Arnold's Out of State Fundraising to Pay off His Personal Loans
See this KCRA Channel 3 story that voices my concerns with Arnold Schwarzenegger's fundraising to pay off personal loans to his campaign -- an apparent violation of existing campaign finance law.
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Why Disclosure Alone Won't Work
Opponents of placing commonsense limits on campaign contributions and spending sometimes argue that limits are bad because big donors will then just find other ways to spend their money in ways that are less obvious for the public to see. Better to just let special interests buy elections, but disclose everything so that the public can at least know that our legislatures are bought and paid for. Disclosure is the key to everything, so they say.
The trouble with this logic is that even in states that have no limits, fat cats find a way around disclosing their activities if they want to. Here's a story from Oregon that tells of a donor who had three businesses that he owned give money to two different political committees, who then gave the money to one candidate -- making it nearly impossible for the public to be able to tell where the money came from. Update: here's an even more detailed story in the Oregonian.
Disclosure is fine, for what its worth. But, lets not pretend that its a replacement for setting limits on spending and contributions, or that those limits will undermine disclosure.
Opponents of placing commonsense limits on campaign contributions and spending sometimes argue that limits are bad because big donors will then just find other ways to spend their money in ways that are less obvious for the public to see. Better to just let special interests buy elections, but disclose everything so that the public can at least know that our legislatures are bought and paid for. Disclosure is the key to everything, so they say.
The trouble with this logic is that even in states that have no limits, fat cats find a way around disclosing their activities if they want to. Here's a story from Oregon that tells of a donor who had three businesses that he owned give money to two different political committees, who then gave the money to one candidate -- making it nearly impossible for the public to be able to tell where the money came from. Update: here's an even more detailed story in the Oregonian.
Disclosure is fine, for what its worth. But, lets not pretend that its a replacement for setting limits on spending and contributions, or that those limits will undermine disclosure.
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
New Jersey Elections for Sale
Here's a Newsday story describing how legislative candidates in New Jersey raised a record $49 million dollars for their campaigns. One candidate raised more than four milion dollars for a state Senate seat and won by a meager 63 votes. Does that election represent the will of the voters, or the will of the donors?
Here's a Newsday story describing how legislative candidates in New Jersey raised a record $49 million dollars for their campaigns. One candidate raised more than four milion dollars for a state Senate seat and won by a meager 63 votes. Does that election represent the will of the voters, or the will of the donors?
Monday, December 01, 2003
Don't be Fooled by Fake Quotes from Honest Abe
"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time," said Abraham Lincoln. Or did he?
The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency has compiled a list of quotes commonly attributed to Abraham Lincoln that have not been substantiated. For instance, the only evidence that Lincoln actually uttered the above quote in 1856 comes from two people's recollections that were recorded in 1910. Details can be found on their website here.
"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time," said Abraham Lincoln. Or did he?
The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency has compiled a list of quotes commonly attributed to Abraham Lincoln that have not been substantiated. For instance, the only evidence that Lincoln actually uttered the above quote in 1856 comes from two people's recollections that were recorded in 1910. Details can be found on their website here.
