Friday, December 19, 2003
Atlantic LTE on McCain-Feingold
The Atlantic Monthly has run a letter to the editor I submitted in response to an article about the McCain-Feingold bill. It reads in part:
George W. Bush, who called for a hard-money increase during his presidential campaign, signed the law largely because it included this increase, and he is now its greatest beneficiary. McCain-Feingold dramatically boosts the clout of Bush's Ranger supporters, who each pledge to raise upwards of $200,000 for his re-election. But McCain-Feingold's increase in hard money will benefit incumbents of all stripes, and its enactment represented more self-interest than principle by members of both political parties.
The Atlantic Monthly has run a letter to the editor I submitted in response to an article about the McCain-Feingold bill. It reads in part:
George W. Bush, who called for a hard-money increase during his presidential campaign, signed the law largely because it included this increase, and he is now its greatest beneficiary. McCain-Feingold dramatically boosts the clout of Bush's Ranger supporters, who each pledge to raise upwards of $200,000 for his re-election. But McCain-Feingold's increase in hard money will benefit incumbents of all stripes, and its enactment represented more self-interest than principle by members of both political parties.
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Why Ivory Tower Reform is Doomed to Failure
Washington Post columnist David Broder has a column that highlights precisely why the recent reform efforts in Washington, DC are worthless. These reforms were crafted by good government intellectual elites who not only don't understand regular Americans, they disdain them.
In his column, Broder quotes Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute. Brookings is unarguably the classic ivory tower in America -- a so-called "think tank" that hires scholars to figure out how we should be running the country. Thomas Mann is a nice guy, I've met him several times, and I have no doubt that he truly means well. Trouble is, he thinks he knows better than ordinary Americans about what is best for our country. "Ordinary citizens think we'll just solve all this [special interest influence] by getting money out," says Mann. He then explains that this is isn't the goal at all and that the McCain-Feingold bill wasn't even intended to get big money out of politics, just "rearrange the flow."
Now, to be fair, there is some value to rearranging the flow of big money in politics. All things being equal, fat cat donors and politicians alike would prefer if the donors could just write unlimited checks that went straight into the pockets of the politicians to use however they want. As I noted a few days ago, it looks like Connecticut Governor Roland used gifts to buy himself a hot tub. So, it is modest progress to "rearrange the flow" out of a politicians personal wallet into a campaign fund, or better yet into a political party, or better still into an independent organization with no ties to the candidate at all. That organization still may spend the same amount of money in ways that will benefit the candidate, but it is a little further removed, a little more sanitary, and a little more difficult for fat cats to outright buy election results.
But I think that ordinary Americans have it right when they want to get big money out of politics. Claiming it can't be done ignores the many examples of state and local governments that have passed reforms that seriously curbed big money in politics.
Inside the beltway reformers whose goal is merely to rearrange big money in politics are a bit like those who talked about rearranging the lawnchairs on the deck of the titanic. By ignoring the real problem, their solutions will not stop our ship of democracy from sinking. Worse yet, by ignoring the common sense instincts of ordinary Americans, they are ensuring that the reform movement will not build the grassroots support necessary to enact meaningful change that will get our ship back on course.
Washington Post columnist David Broder has a column that highlights precisely why the recent reform efforts in Washington, DC are worthless. These reforms were crafted by good government intellectual elites who not only don't understand regular Americans, they disdain them.
In his column, Broder quotes Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute. Brookings is unarguably the classic ivory tower in America -- a so-called "think tank" that hires scholars to figure out how we should be running the country. Thomas Mann is a nice guy, I've met him several times, and I have no doubt that he truly means well. Trouble is, he thinks he knows better than ordinary Americans about what is best for our country. "Ordinary citizens think we'll just solve all this [special interest influence] by getting money out," says Mann. He then explains that this is isn't the goal at all and that the McCain-Feingold bill wasn't even intended to get big money out of politics, just "rearrange the flow."
Now, to be fair, there is some value to rearranging the flow of big money in politics. All things being equal, fat cat donors and politicians alike would prefer if the donors could just write unlimited checks that went straight into the pockets of the politicians to use however they want. As I noted a few days ago, it looks like Connecticut Governor Roland used gifts to buy himself a hot tub. So, it is modest progress to "rearrange the flow" out of a politicians personal wallet into a campaign fund, or better yet into a political party, or better still into an independent organization with no ties to the candidate at all. That organization still may spend the same amount of money in ways that will benefit the candidate, but it is a little further removed, a little more sanitary, and a little more difficult for fat cats to outright buy election results.
But I think that ordinary Americans have it right when they want to get big money out of politics. Claiming it can't be done ignores the many examples of state and local governments that have passed reforms that seriously curbed big money in politics.
Inside the beltway reformers whose goal is merely to rearrange big money in politics are a bit like those who talked about rearranging the lawnchairs on the deck of the titanic. By ignoring the real problem, their solutions will not stop our ship of democracy from sinking. Worse yet, by ignoring the common sense instincts of ordinary Americans, they are ensuring that the reform movement will not build the grassroots support necessary to enact meaningful change that will get our ship back on course.
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
Former Governor of Illinois Indicted
US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald charged George Ryan today for racketeering and fraud while serving as Governor of Illinois. This sad story began when a trucker killed six children in an accident in Wisconsin. It was later alleged that the trucker was among many who had obtained a trucking drivers license through bribes to Ryan's political campaigns. The real costs of corrupt government started hitting home for Illinois residents when they saw this. Details are here in the Chicago Tribune.
Yet another example about how money has corrupted the moral integrity of our elected officials and indeed our entire political system. If money is the root of all evil, we must start to make things better by getting big money out of political campaigns.
US Attorney General Found Guilty of Campaign Law Violation
The Federal Elections Commission, not known as the most vigorous enforcer of campaign finance laws, has found Attorney General John Ashcroft guilty of violating federal campaign finance laws. Ashcroft, you may remember, ran for President in 2000. As part of the buildup to his campaign, he started a PAC called the Spirit of America. Contributions to this PAC didn't count as contributions to his campaign, but Ashcroft used the Spirit of America PAC to build up a mailing list at a cost of $1.7 million dollars. He then transferred that list over to his presidential campaign, in violation of federal law. Unfortunately, the toothless FEC only fined his campaign $37,000 for the offense, basically inviting him or anyone else to do the same procedure again. Here's a story in the Washington Post.
US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald charged George Ryan today for racketeering and fraud while serving as Governor of Illinois. This sad story began when a trucker killed six children in an accident in Wisconsin. It was later alleged that the trucker was among many who had obtained a trucking drivers license through bribes to Ryan's political campaigns. The real costs of corrupt government started hitting home for Illinois residents when they saw this. Details are here in the Chicago Tribune.
Yet another example about how money has corrupted the moral integrity of our elected officials and indeed our entire political system. If money is the root of all evil, we must start to make things better by getting big money out of political campaigns.
US Attorney General Found Guilty of Campaign Law Violation
The Federal Elections Commission, not known as the most vigorous enforcer of campaign finance laws, has found Attorney General John Ashcroft guilty of violating federal campaign finance laws. Ashcroft, you may remember, ran for President in 2000. As part of the buildup to his campaign, he started a PAC called the Spirit of America. Contributions to this PAC didn't count as contributions to his campaign, but Ashcroft used the Spirit of America PAC to build up a mailing list at a cost of $1.7 million dollars. He then transferred that list over to his presidential campaign, in violation of federal law. Unfortunately, the toothless FEC only fined his campaign $37,000 for the offense, basically inviting him or anyone else to do the same procedure again. Here's a story in the Washington Post.
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Will Colorado Legislators Evade Campaign Finance Limits?
In the Novemeber 2002 election, Colorado voters approved tough limits on contributions to political candidates. I actually had a hand in drafting that initiative and helped a group called Voter Revolt get it passed.
But rather than abide by the will of the people, who by a two-to-one margin told legislators to strictly limit the contributions that they raised, legislators crafted a loophole called office holder accounts. The idea is that these aren't campaign accounts, and therefore they can accept unlimited contributions. Its basically their own personal version of soft money. Well, luckily the idea failed in the legislature last spring after the public got wind of it. But now its been revived by Secretary of State Donnetta Davidson. She's issued draft compliance rules for Amendment 27 that contain this officeholder account loophole.
Here's an editorial in the Rocky Mountain News with the details on this. Even though the Rocky opposed reform when it was on the ballot, they now have the integrity to at least call for the voters' will to be implemented.
In the Novemeber 2002 election, Colorado voters approved tough limits on contributions to political candidates. I actually had a hand in drafting that initiative and helped a group called Voter Revolt get it passed.
But rather than abide by the will of the people, who by a two-to-one margin told legislators to strictly limit the contributions that they raised, legislators crafted a loophole called office holder accounts. The idea is that these aren't campaign accounts, and therefore they can accept unlimited contributions. Its basically their own personal version of soft money. Well, luckily the idea failed in the legislature last spring after the public got wind of it. But now its been revived by Secretary of State Donnetta Davidson. She's issued draft compliance rules for Amendment 27 that contain this officeholder account loophole.
Here's an editorial in the Rocky Mountain News with the details on this. Even though the Rocky opposed reform when it was on the ballot, they now have the integrity to at least call for the voters' will to be implemented.
Monday, December 15, 2003
Should Conneticut's Governor Resign?
Over the weekend, Connecticut newspapers began calling on Connecticut Governor John Rowland to resign. Here's the first one that did so, the Day, which had twice endorsed the Governor for election. Here's another editorial in the Manchester Journal Inquirer.
Sounds like the Governor has a problem with lying. He is accused of having had private interests pay for improvements on his vacation house, and then lying about it. He claimed he'd never spoken to Enron top dog Ken Lay, although Enron's own records dispute this. Enron in fact gave the Republican Governor's Association, which Rowland heads up, $60,000 within days of Connecticut giving Enron a sweetheart deal.
Interestingly, John Rowland had vetoed a campaign finance reform bill a few years ago. Wonder if there is any connection between politicians who hate reform and politicians who don't seem to know wrong from right?
Over the weekend, Connecticut newspapers began calling on Connecticut Governor John Rowland to resign. Here's the first one that did so, the Day, which had twice endorsed the Governor for election. Here's another editorial in the Manchester Journal Inquirer.
Sounds like the Governor has a problem with lying. He is accused of having had private interests pay for improvements on his vacation house, and then lying about it. He claimed he'd never spoken to Enron top dog Ken Lay, although Enron's own records dispute this. Enron in fact gave the Republican Governor's Association, which Rowland heads up, $60,000 within days of Connecticut giving Enron a sweetheart deal.
Interestingly, John Rowland had vetoed a campaign finance reform bill a few years ago. Wonder if there is any connection between politicians who hate reform and politicians who don't seem to know wrong from right?
