Friday, January 30, 2004
Candidate Loan Limits Face Legal Battle in Kentucky
Just days after a California state court ruled that Arnold Schwarzenegger's multimillion dollar loans to his campaign violated California campaign finance law, the Kentucky Attorney General announced that he will appeal a recent ruling by the Sixth Circuit federal court of appeals that struck down a similar law in Kentucky. The Louisville Courier-Journal reports that geneticist's law was passed after both Democrat and Republican candidates for governor made multi-million dollar loans to their campaigns in 1988.
One concern with these loans is that elected officials could in-effect be bribed with contributions that repay the loans to themselves. But the deeper concern is that very few citizens can afford to give themselves multi-million dollar loans in the first place. If we have a campaign system that requires you to be able to fund your own campaign, either with loans or outright contributions, we'll a campaign system where very few honest regular folks could ever run for office in the first place. The real solution would be to set mandatory limits on a candidates total spending, whether it comes from personal wealth or from money they raise from others. But, until then, setting limits on loans is a small step toward leveling the playing field.
Just days after a California state court ruled that Arnold Schwarzenegger's multimillion dollar loans to his campaign violated California campaign finance law, the Kentucky Attorney General announced that he will appeal a recent ruling by the Sixth Circuit federal court of appeals that struck down a similar law in Kentucky. The Louisville Courier-Journal reports that geneticist's law was passed after both Democrat and Republican candidates for governor made multi-million dollar loans to their campaigns in 1988.
One concern with these loans is that elected officials could in-effect be bribed with contributions that repay the loans to themselves. But the deeper concern is that very few citizens can afford to give themselves multi-million dollar loans in the first place. If we have a campaign system that requires you to be able to fund your own campaign, either with loans or outright contributions, we'll a campaign system where very few honest regular folks could ever run for office in the first place. The real solution would be to set mandatory limits on a candidates total spending, whether it comes from personal wealth or from money they raise from others. But, until then, setting limits on loans is a small step toward leveling the playing field.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Drug Pushers Try to Hire A Congressman -- Literally
The big prescription drug association, PhRMA, has offered Bill Tauzin a job, and a pretty nice salary to boot. Tauzin is the current chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and he has had jurisdiction over the Food and Drug Administration and the pharmaceutical industry. Tauzin is evidently looking to make more money than he does in Congress, and recently turned down an offer from Hollywood moviemakers at $1 million a year.
This move would be particularly troubling if Tauzin gave drug companies a big handout in the recent Medicare prescription drug bill with the hopes of getting repaid by them in the form of a cushy job. But, so far there is no evidence of that. It seems quite possible that Tauzin really believed that drug companies needed a handout and was just following his conscience in helping them out. They then are just hiring a well-connected guy who agrees with their agenda of profit maximization. See details here on CNN.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to make money in America and Tauzin has not yet even decided if he'll take the job. If he does, he'll be breaking no laws or ethics rules to do so. But, it is a pretty sad statement about our politics today that one of America's biggest special interests sees one of the most powerful current members of congress as its natural ally, so much so as to want to hire him. Tauzin has been their guy while a both a Democratic and Republican member of Congress and he'll be their guy once he's out. What we need is a campaign finance system that puts people in office who want to serve the rest of us, rather than one that elects people who are doing the bidding of the special interests even before they are directly put on their payroll.
The big prescription drug association, PhRMA, has offered Bill Tauzin a job, and a pretty nice salary to boot. Tauzin is the current chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and he has had jurisdiction over the Food and Drug Administration and the pharmaceutical industry. Tauzin is evidently looking to make more money than he does in Congress, and recently turned down an offer from Hollywood moviemakers at $1 million a year.
This move would be particularly troubling if Tauzin gave drug companies a big handout in the recent Medicare prescription drug bill with the hopes of getting repaid by them in the form of a cushy job. But, so far there is no evidence of that. It seems quite possible that Tauzin really believed that drug companies needed a handout and was just following his conscience in helping them out. They then are just hiring a well-connected guy who agrees with their agenda of profit maximization. See details here on CNN.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to make money in America and Tauzin has not yet even decided if he'll take the job. If he does, he'll be breaking no laws or ethics rules to do so. But, it is a pretty sad statement about our politics today that one of America's biggest special interests sees one of the most powerful current members of congress as its natural ally, so much so as to want to hire him. Tauzin has been their guy while a both a Democratic and Republican member of Congress and he'll be their guy once he's out. What we need is a campaign finance system that puts people in office who want to serve the rest of us, rather than one that elects people who are doing the bidding of the special interests even before they are directly put on their payroll.
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Schwarzenegger's Campaign Loan's Ruled Illegal
California Judge Loren McMaster has ruled that Arnold Schwarzenegger's $4.5 million in loans to his campaign were illegal under California law. I had been critical of these loans (see posting on October 14, 2003) because they could have been paid back by large campaign contributions that went straight into Arnold's own pockets -- smacking of bribery.
The Governor has said he will not appeal and will comply with the ruling. Good for him. His staff claim he originally used the loan only after consulting with flawed rulings by the state's Fair Political Practices Commission.
This now means that both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Cruz Bustamonte (see Jan 10, 2004 post) have been found to have committed major violations of campaign finance law during their campaigns. We need better and faster enforcement so that voters can learn about these violations before election day, not months afterward.
California Judge Loren McMaster has ruled that Arnold Schwarzenegger's $4.5 million in loans to his campaign were illegal under California law. I had been critical of these loans (see posting on October 14, 2003) because they could have been paid back by large campaign contributions that went straight into Arnold's own pockets -- smacking of bribery.
The Governor has said he will not appeal and will comply with the ruling. Good for him. His staff claim he originally used the loan only after consulting with flawed rulings by the state's Fair Political Practices Commission.
This now means that both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Cruz Bustamonte (see Jan 10, 2004 post) have been found to have committed major violations of campaign finance law during their campaigns. We need better and faster enforcement so that voters can learn about these violations before election day, not months afterward.
Jeb Bush Calls for Greater Disclosure of Campaign Slush Funds
Kudos to Florida Governor Jeb Bush for his committment to require disclosure of currently secret funds used to influence Florida elections. Today's Saint Petersburg Times reports that improving disclosure is one of the governor's top three priorities for the year.
Florida has a system much like the recent federal soft money system. Some big money donors are getting around limits on contributions to candidates by giving instead to outside groups, who then spend the money in ways that help candidates. Florida really should do much more than requiring disclosure of funds to these groups, they should apply the same limits to these campaigns as they do to candidate campaigns. The Supreme Court has recently made clear that states can do this to prevent their contribution limits from becoming irrelevant.
So, Jeb Bushes proposal is a good first step, but he should really go much further. Voters should keep a close eye on things, however, as the Times reports that "how they will do it is unclear." Politicians in Florida might steal a play from the politicians in Washington, DC and dramatically increase the limits on money they themselves can raise while putting only modest disclosure regulations on the big funds raised by outside groups.
Kudos to Florida Governor Jeb Bush for his committment to require disclosure of currently secret funds used to influence Florida elections. Today's Saint Petersburg Times reports that improving disclosure is one of the governor's top three priorities for the year.
Florida has a system much like the recent federal soft money system. Some big money donors are getting around limits on contributions to candidates by giving instead to outside groups, who then spend the money in ways that help candidates. Florida really should do much more than requiring disclosure of funds to these groups, they should apply the same limits to these campaigns as they do to candidate campaigns. The Supreme Court has recently made clear that states can do this to prevent their contribution limits from becoming irrelevant.
So, Jeb Bushes proposal is a good first step, but he should really go much further. Voters should keep a close eye on things, however, as the Times reports that "how they will do it is unclear." Politicians in Florida might steal a play from the politicians in Washington, DC and dramatically increase the limits on money they themselves can raise while putting only modest disclosure regulations on the big funds raised by outside groups.
Monday, January 26, 2004
Advertisers Predict Record Breaking Year
A media industry trade publication, MediaPost, predicts here that 2004 will be a record breaking year for political ads, expecting them to top $1.3 billion. In fact, political ads are the main reason that the entire industry expects any ad growth this year. This brings several things to mind:
1) For the most part, there is a fixed amount of TV advertising available. As some candidates raise more money, they are able to afford greater prices which pushes the price up both for other candidates and for your local car dealer. Current FCC regulations require stations to charge candidates the lowest price that they offer, but this is only for what's called "pre-emptible time." To avoid getting bumped by a higher paying competitor, candidates who can afford to pay top dollar. They're doing so literally pre-empts the speech of other, lesser funded candidates.
2) TV ad spending continues to go up and up. Does anyone think that we actually have better campaigns as a result?
3) It would seem to be in TV stations financial interests to provide less news coverage of candidates (which costs them money) and instead have candidates rely on paid ads in order to communicate with voters. This would also be in the interests of candidates, or at least those backed by wealthy donors. This way, they can "control" their message, rather than having the media "filter" it to viewers. But, is this in the voters interest? When you buy a car, would you rather watch a TV ad, or read a "filtered" review of the car in Consumer Reports or Car & Driver? When you vote for a candidate, do you trust what they say about themselves (or their opponents), or what a third party media outlet says (assuming you know what the media outlet's biases are?)
A media industry trade publication, MediaPost, predicts here that 2004 will be a record breaking year for political ads, expecting them to top $1.3 billion. In fact, political ads are the main reason that the entire industry expects any ad growth this year. This brings several things to mind:
1) For the most part, there is a fixed amount of TV advertising available. As some candidates raise more money, they are able to afford greater prices which pushes the price up both for other candidates and for your local car dealer. Current FCC regulations require stations to charge candidates the lowest price that they offer, but this is only for what's called "pre-emptible time." To avoid getting bumped by a higher paying competitor, candidates who can afford to pay top dollar. They're doing so literally pre-empts the speech of other, lesser funded candidates.
2) TV ad spending continues to go up and up. Does anyone think that we actually have better campaigns as a result?
3) It would seem to be in TV stations financial interests to provide less news coverage of candidates (which costs them money) and instead have candidates rely on paid ads in order to communicate with voters. This would also be in the interests of candidates, or at least those backed by wealthy donors. This way, they can "control" their message, rather than having the media "filter" it to viewers. But, is this in the voters interest? When you buy a car, would you rather watch a TV ad, or read a "filtered" review of the car in Consumer Reports or Car & Driver? When you vote for a candidate, do you trust what they say about themselves (or their opponents), or what a third party media outlet says (assuming you know what the media outlet's biases are?)
