Friday, December 12, 2003
Was South Carolina Snookered?
Today's Charleston Post and Courier runs a story whose headline is "Ruling Could Restrain Attack Ads." (free registration required.) The story goes on to suggest that the McCain-Feingold law will reduce anonymous attacks on candidates such as South Carolina has witnessed recently.
The Supreme Court's ruling on electioneering ads was generally a good thing, but we shouldn't expect too much of it. The McCain-Feingold law says that outside groups use corporate and labor funds to run ads on broadcast TV and radio within 60 days of an election if they mention a candidate's name. That still leaves an awful lot of room for attack ads. Consider:
1) Candidates themselves as well as parties will have more money than before, due to the increased hard money limits in McCain-Feingold. They'll be free to spend this money on attack ads.
2) Outside groups will be free to take unlimited sums of money from wealthy individuals, and use them to run attack ads.
3) Outside groups could even take unlimited sums of money from corporations and use them for attack mailings or other forms of advertising such as so-called telephone "push polls." South Carolina should remember these well from the 2000 presidential campaign when John McCain was smeared by anonymous negative phone calls. These calls worked. After winning the New Hampshire primary, McCain lost South Carolina to George Bush who went on to win the nomination and presidency.
Misguided Reform Proposal in Oklahoma
Sometimes you can tell that politicians really don't get the depth of our problems by the shallowness of the solutions they propose. Here's an example from Oklahoma, where state representative John Trebilcock is proposing a bill that would make it illegal to give an elected official a campaign contribution inside the halls of the legislature.
This kind of solution crops up because legislators feel slimy when a lobbyist gives them money right before they go into vote on something. They worry that it might look like the money influenced how they voted. But changing the time or place that the check is given won't accomplish much of anything. As long as big money helps candidates win elections, those candidates who saddle up to the lobbyists will get more money from the lobbyists. They'll then defeat candidates who stand up to the lobbyists. So unless politicians are particularly thick-headed (and maybe a few are), they'll quickly figure out how to vote in ways that keep the lobbyists happy regardless of when or how the lobbyist helps them win their campaign.
Today's Charleston Post and Courier runs a story whose headline is "Ruling Could Restrain Attack Ads." (free registration required.) The story goes on to suggest that the McCain-Feingold law will reduce anonymous attacks on candidates such as South Carolina has witnessed recently.
The Supreme Court's ruling on electioneering ads was generally a good thing, but we shouldn't expect too much of it. The McCain-Feingold law says that outside groups use corporate and labor funds to run ads on broadcast TV and radio within 60 days of an election if they mention a candidate's name. That still leaves an awful lot of room for attack ads. Consider:
1) Candidates themselves as well as parties will have more money than before, due to the increased hard money limits in McCain-Feingold. They'll be free to spend this money on attack ads.
2) Outside groups will be free to take unlimited sums of money from wealthy individuals, and use them to run attack ads.
3) Outside groups could even take unlimited sums of money from corporations and use them for attack mailings or other forms of advertising such as so-called telephone "push polls." South Carolina should remember these well from the 2000 presidential campaign when John McCain was smeared by anonymous negative phone calls. These calls worked. After winning the New Hampshire primary, McCain lost South Carolina to George Bush who went on to win the nomination and presidency.
Misguided Reform Proposal in Oklahoma
Sometimes you can tell that politicians really don't get the depth of our problems by the shallowness of the solutions they propose. Here's an example from Oklahoma, where state representative John Trebilcock is proposing a bill that would make it illegal to give an elected official a campaign contribution inside the halls of the legislature.
This kind of solution crops up because legislators feel slimy when a lobbyist gives them money right before they go into vote on something. They worry that it might look like the money influenced how they voted. But changing the time or place that the check is given won't accomplish much of anything. As long as big money helps candidates win elections, those candidates who saddle up to the lobbyists will get more money from the lobbyists. They'll then defeat candidates who stand up to the lobbyists. So unless politicians are particularly thick-headed (and maybe a few are), they'll quickly figure out how to vote in ways that keep the lobbyists happy regardless of when or how the lobbyist helps them win their campaign.
Thursday, December 11, 2003
Supreme Spin
There's lots of interesting coverage today about the ramifications of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling upholding most of the McCain-Feingold law.
Here's a story in USA Today. Some items of interest include:
1) The combined revenue of the Republican and Democractic parties for the first half of this year is up 17% from the last presidential cycle. This is because even though the parties can no longer raise soft money, the limits on what they can raise in hard money have gone up dramatically. So, contrary to claims that this is hurting the parties, they have more money than ever. What does Senator Feingold say about this? He says the development is "healthy."
2) Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, says "This has not taken the special-interest money out of politics." He should know, his group spends millions of dollars on ads attacking candidates. He's right, his group will continue to be able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to attack candidates under the new law.
Here's a story from the Boston Globe which notes that groups of high income donors such as law firms are the winners. This is because these groups can now bundle $2000 checks instead of $1000 checks before McCain-Feingold. Just what we need, right, more influence by lawyers. This story says that wealthy individual donors are not winners, but I'm not sure why. A wealthy individual donor can give twice as much to a candidate as before, and can give $95,000 to all candidates and parties combined -- up from $50,000 before McCain-Feingold. They can't give unlimited amounts to parties, but they can still give unlimited amounts to electioneering groups who can use it for direct mail, telephone push polls, get out the vote efforts, all sorts of things.
Here's a story from the Los Angeles Times that quotes Senator Mitch McConnell saying that the McCain-Feingold law won't remove one dime from politics, just shift it around. I don't think he's totally right about this, but it likely will bring in more hard money under the higher limits than it will remove from the soft money regulations.
So, why then does the New York Times editorialize that this is a Campaign Finance Triumph? If they are just reading the opinion, perhaps they are right. Its a good ruling, and it authorizes Congress and the states to pass serious rules that would reduce the role of big money in politics. Unfortunately, the McCain-Feingold law won't actually do that.
There's lots of interesting coverage today about the ramifications of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling upholding most of the McCain-Feingold law.
Here's a story in USA Today. Some items of interest include:
1) The combined revenue of the Republican and Democractic parties for the first half of this year is up 17% from the last presidential cycle. This is because even though the parties can no longer raise soft money, the limits on what they can raise in hard money have gone up dramatically. So, contrary to claims that this is hurting the parties, they have more money than ever. What does Senator Feingold say about this? He says the development is "healthy."
2) Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, says "This has not taken the special-interest money out of politics." He should know, his group spends millions of dollars on ads attacking candidates. He's right, his group will continue to be able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to attack candidates under the new law.
Here's a story from the Boston Globe which notes that groups of high income donors such as law firms are the winners. This is because these groups can now bundle $2000 checks instead of $1000 checks before McCain-Feingold. Just what we need, right, more influence by lawyers. This story says that wealthy individual donors are not winners, but I'm not sure why. A wealthy individual donor can give twice as much to a candidate as before, and can give $95,000 to all candidates and parties combined -- up from $50,000 before McCain-Feingold. They can't give unlimited amounts to parties, but they can still give unlimited amounts to electioneering groups who can use it for direct mail, telephone push polls, get out the vote efforts, all sorts of things.
Here's a story from the Los Angeles Times that quotes Senator Mitch McConnell saying that the McCain-Feingold law won't remove one dime from politics, just shift it around. I don't think he's totally right about this, but it likely will bring in more hard money under the higher limits than it will remove from the soft money regulations.
So, why then does the New York Times editorialize that this is a Campaign Finance Triumph? If they are just reading the opinion, perhaps they are right. Its a good ruling, and it authorizes Congress and the states to pass serious rules that would reduce the role of big money in politics. Unfortunately, the McCain-Feingold law won't actually do that.
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
The Supremes Uphold Good and Bad Aspects of McCain-Feingold
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long awaited ruling on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that Congress passed in 2002. You can read the whole ruling here at the Court's website.
I was part of a legal challenge to portions of the McCain-Feingold law that doubled the so called hard money limits on what candidates could raise directly from large donors. This increase was part of the wheeling and dealing that went on in smoke-filled rooms in order to get the U.S. Senate to pass a bill, any bill, that its propoents could call victory. You can read the brief submitted by the non-profit lawyers who represented me and other public interest groups and grassroots candidates here.
The Court wasn't interested in the plight of ordinary citizens and the fact that candidates backed by regular folks don't have a chance against the candidates backed by the fat cats. The Court said that "we have noted that 'political free trade' does not necessarily require that all who participate in the political marketplace do so with exactly equal resource." Now, we weren't asking for exactly equal resources, mind you. We were just asking the Court to keep the current contribution limit at $1000, which most of us still can't afford but at least this would keep regular folks from getting completely blown out of the water. I guess the Courts idea of political free trade is a little like NAFTA's version of economic free trade, where the big money guys come out fine and the little guy gets screwed.
To the grassroots candidate who stands up to special interests and therefore doesn't get much money from them, the Court said, "their alleged inability to compete stems not from the operation of [BCRA], but from their own personal 'wish' not to solicit or accept large contributions, i.e. their personal choice." So, in other words, candidates who choose to stand up to big money interests deserve to get beat by those who will do their bidding.
Luckily, not everything the Court said was bad. By a narrow majority, the Court upheld longstanding principles that we can limit contributions to candidates and can keep fat cats from cheating by extending those limits to political parties and groups who conduct electioneering activities. That's a start.
The Court also reaffirmed that we can ban corporate and labor contributions to parties and to electioneering groups. That too is a good thing, especially since Chief Justice Rehnquist announced during the oral arguments last fall that he has reversed his position on this. However, Sandra Day O'Conner, who previously opposed banning corporate and labor contributions, also switched her position, so for now reformers can continue to push for this reform.
So, ignore those who claim this is a monumental victory as well as those who say that money is speech and somehow the First Amendment just went out the window. The reality is that campaigns are going to look pretty much the same tomorrow after this Supreme Court ruling takes hold, as they did yesterday before the Supremes ruled.
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long awaited ruling on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that Congress passed in 2002. You can read the whole ruling here at the Court's website.
I was part of a legal challenge to portions of the McCain-Feingold law that doubled the so called hard money limits on what candidates could raise directly from large donors. This increase was part of the wheeling and dealing that went on in smoke-filled rooms in order to get the U.S. Senate to pass a bill, any bill, that its propoents could call victory. You can read the brief submitted by the non-profit lawyers who represented me and other public interest groups and grassroots candidates here.
The Court wasn't interested in the plight of ordinary citizens and the fact that candidates backed by regular folks don't have a chance against the candidates backed by the fat cats. The Court said that "we have noted that 'political free trade' does not necessarily require that all who participate in the political marketplace do so with exactly equal resource." Now, we weren't asking for exactly equal resources, mind you. We were just asking the Court to keep the current contribution limit at $1000, which most of us still can't afford but at least this would keep regular folks from getting completely blown out of the water. I guess the Courts idea of political free trade is a little like NAFTA's version of economic free trade, where the big money guys come out fine and the little guy gets screwed.
To the grassroots candidate who stands up to special interests and therefore doesn't get much money from them, the Court said, "their alleged inability to compete stems not from the operation of [BCRA], but from their own personal 'wish' not to solicit or accept large contributions, i.e. their personal choice." So, in other words, candidates who choose to stand up to big money interests deserve to get beat by those who will do their bidding.
Luckily, not everything the Court said was bad. By a narrow majority, the Court upheld longstanding principles that we can limit contributions to candidates and can keep fat cats from cheating by extending those limits to political parties and groups who conduct electioneering activities. That's a start.
The Court also reaffirmed that we can ban corporate and labor contributions to parties and to electioneering groups. That too is a good thing, especially since Chief Justice Rehnquist announced during the oral arguments last fall that he has reversed his position on this. However, Sandra Day O'Conner, who previously opposed banning corporate and labor contributions, also switched her position, so for now reformers can continue to push for this reform.
So, ignore those who claim this is a monumental victory as well as those who say that money is speech and somehow the First Amendment just went out the window. The reality is that campaigns are going to look pretty much the same tomorrow after this Supreme Court ruling takes hold, as they did yesterday before the Supremes ruled.
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
Is Tom DeLay Running Afoul of the Texas Ban on Corporate Money?
Texas state law prohibits corporations and labor unions from giving money to state candidates. Federal law has long since banned corporate contributions to federal candidates and this was recently extended to cover federal parties as well. Tom DeLay voted against that extension, but he ought to at least live by the law in his own state.
According to the Longview News Journal, Delay helped a group called Texans for a Republican Majority raise some $600,000 in contributions from corporations. The group apparently used the money in ways that sure sound like electioneering: conducting polling, evaluating candidates, and doing fundraising. A grand jury is conducting an evaluation to see if these activities violate Texas law.
During his 2000 campaign, George Bush agreed with the principle that corporate money should be used for business purposes and ought not be used for political purposes. Seems like his fellow Texan didn't get the message.
Texas state law prohibits corporations and labor unions from giving money to state candidates. Federal law has long since banned corporate contributions to federal candidates and this was recently extended to cover federal parties as well. Tom DeLay voted against that extension, but he ought to at least live by the law in his own state.
According to the Longview News Journal, Delay helped a group called Texans for a Republican Majority raise some $600,000 in contributions from corporations. The group apparently used the money in ways that sure sound like electioneering: conducting polling, evaluating candidates, and doing fundraising. A grand jury is conducting an evaluation to see if these activities violate Texas law.
During his 2000 campaign, George Bush agreed with the principle that corporate money should be used for business purposes and ought not be used for political purposes. Seems like his fellow Texan didn't get the message.
Monday, December 08, 2003
How Loan Sharks Can Buy a Committee Chairmanship
Ever since Jesus threw the moneylenders out of the temple, society has been plagued with the problem of usury -- when those with money lend it to those who are in desperation at rates that would embarrass any honest to goodness Wall Street Banker.
Take for instance the example of payday loans. These short term loans that working folks sometimes need to get them from paycheck to paycheck can carry interest charges of up to 391% according to this factsheet put out by the Federal Trade Commission.
Several states have tried to ban these practices, and federal regulators had wanted to clamp down too. Payday gouger Bill Webster was faced with the prospect of shutting down 216 loanshark operations in Pennsyvlania and North Carolina. But, Billy got the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Mike Oxley, to weigh in and keep him in business.
Since Oxley was a friend, Billy Webster wanted to make sure he stayed in positions of power so that he could continue to help in out. On the very day when his payday loan operations were supposed to shut down, but didn't, Bill raised $42,000 for Mike Oxley's campaign committee.
The Toledo Blade runs a very detailed story here outlining the whole ugly affair. The reporter quotes some DC reformers who suggest that Oxley's view is being influence by the donations, as opposed to the donors simply giving to politicians they agree with. But this critique really misses the mark.
First off, it seems quite possible that Oxley really does agree with the payday lenders. After all, his other big accomplishments have included siding with oil and chemical companies to abolish fees they paid to clean up their hazardous waste sites.
But, even if Mike Oxley does agree with Bill Webster that he should be allowed to charge 391% interest for his payday loans and is totally following his best judgment as a legislator when working to strike down regulations that prevent this, there is still a huge problem with our democracy. Webster may not have bought Oxley's judgment, but rater he has bought a seat for his ally Oxley at the table.
According to Federal Election Commission records, Oxley raised $1,256,848 in his 2002 re-election campaign. His general election opponent Jim Clark raised just $10,551. Not surprisingly, Clark lost after being outspent by more than a hundred to one. So, the real question at hand is not whether Mike Oxley's judgment was swayed by his contributions from the payday loan industry, but whether or not Jim Clark would have done the same favor to the industry as Oxley did.
The question goes deeper than just whether Oxley would be in Congress or not, but for the big money he takes from loan sharks and polluters. In order to really help his fat cat friends, Oxley needs to be in a position of power. He needs to be a committee chair. This means he needs to raise money to give to other candidates, so that his party wins a majority of the seats and so the members of his party owe him a favor and will vote for him as committee chair. It's not just one seat in Congress that's for sale, its the whole enchilada.
Oxley freely admits as much, saying "I raise a lot and give away a lot. The last cycle I gave away as much as I spent on myself to keep the majority, to keep me as chairman, and to increase our majority."
And this is precisely the problem Mr. Oxley. Big money should not be the way that you keep your chairmanship, and the majority of the House of Representatives ought not be for sale.
Ever since Jesus threw the moneylenders out of the temple, society has been plagued with the problem of usury -- when those with money lend it to those who are in desperation at rates that would embarrass any honest to goodness Wall Street Banker.
Take for instance the example of payday loans. These short term loans that working folks sometimes need to get them from paycheck to paycheck can carry interest charges of up to 391% according to this factsheet put out by the Federal Trade Commission.
Several states have tried to ban these practices, and federal regulators had wanted to clamp down too. Payday gouger Bill Webster was faced with the prospect of shutting down 216 loanshark operations in Pennsyvlania and North Carolina. But, Billy got the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Mike Oxley, to weigh in and keep him in business.
Since Oxley was a friend, Billy Webster wanted to make sure he stayed in positions of power so that he could continue to help in out. On the very day when his payday loan operations were supposed to shut down, but didn't, Bill raised $42,000 for Mike Oxley's campaign committee.
The Toledo Blade runs a very detailed story here outlining the whole ugly affair. The reporter quotes some DC reformers who suggest that Oxley's view is being influence by the donations, as opposed to the donors simply giving to politicians they agree with. But this critique really misses the mark.
First off, it seems quite possible that Oxley really does agree with the payday lenders. After all, his other big accomplishments have included siding with oil and chemical companies to abolish fees they paid to clean up their hazardous waste sites.
But, even if Mike Oxley does agree with Bill Webster that he should be allowed to charge 391% interest for his payday loans and is totally following his best judgment as a legislator when working to strike down regulations that prevent this, there is still a huge problem with our democracy. Webster may not have bought Oxley's judgment, but rater he has bought a seat for his ally Oxley at the table.
According to Federal Election Commission records, Oxley raised $1,256,848 in his 2002 re-election campaign. His general election opponent Jim Clark raised just $10,551. Not surprisingly, Clark lost after being outspent by more than a hundred to one. So, the real question at hand is not whether Mike Oxley's judgment was swayed by his contributions from the payday loan industry, but whether or not Jim Clark would have done the same favor to the industry as Oxley did.
The question goes deeper than just whether Oxley would be in Congress or not, but for the big money he takes from loan sharks and polluters. In order to really help his fat cat friends, Oxley needs to be in a position of power. He needs to be a committee chair. This means he needs to raise money to give to other candidates, so that his party wins a majority of the seats and so the members of his party owe him a favor and will vote for him as committee chair. It's not just one seat in Congress that's for sale, its the whole enchilada.
Oxley freely admits as much, saying "I raise a lot and give away a lot. The last cycle I gave away as much as I spent on myself to keep the majority, to keep me as chairman, and to increase our majority."
And this is precisely the problem Mr. Oxley. Big money should not be the way that you keep your chairmanship, and the majority of the House of Representatives ought not be for sale.
