Friday, February 13, 2004
Congressmen Move to Weaken An Already Weak Reform Law
Twelve members of Congress have introduced legislation aimed at repealing one of the good provisions of the McCain-Feingold law. That law was passed by Congress in 2001 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003. These members of Congress now claim that it is unconstitutional, which has become simply another way of saying that you don't like something.
The bill number is H.R. 3801. Can can read the entire bill by going to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and entering in the bill number. The bill's summary reads as follows:
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to repeal the requirement that persons making disbursements for electioneering communications file reports on such disbursements with the Federal Election Commission and the prohibition against the making of disbursements for electioneering communications by corporations and labor organizations, and for other purposes. "
This would remove the requirement in current law that if you want to run an ad on TV or radio attacking a federal candidate by name, you can't use money from corporate or labor union treasuries. There are already many ways around this minimal restriction. Corporations and labor unions can still have their shareholders, executives, and members pool their individual funds into a political action committee, which can then run ads attacking candidates. Or, the corporations can send out direct mailings attacking candidates. Or, they can sponsor nefarious phone calls, asking voters things like "would you vote for Senator Joe Bloe if you knew that he smoked marijuana, dodged the draft, and beat his wife?" even if none of those things are true. The FEC is currently considering closing some of these loopholes, which would actually give the law some teeth.
But, I guess the simple fact that some politicians think that even the very minimal rules that now exist dealing with money and politics are too tough for them to live by must be yet another indication that campaign finance reform actually can work. Imagine what would happen if Congress ever passed a real reform bill.
The twelve members of Congress who apparently would like corporations to spend their shareholder's money on politics without their consent are: Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. CRANE, Mr. OTTER, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. PAUL, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. AKIN, Mrs. CUBIN, and Mr. PENCE.
Twelve members of Congress have introduced legislation aimed at repealing one of the good provisions of the McCain-Feingold law. That law was passed by Congress in 2001 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003. These members of Congress now claim that it is unconstitutional, which has become simply another way of saying that you don't like something.
The bill number is H.R. 3801. Can can read the entire bill by going to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and entering in the bill number. The bill's summary reads as follows:
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to repeal the requirement that persons making disbursements for electioneering communications file reports on such disbursements with the Federal Election Commission and the prohibition against the making of disbursements for electioneering communications by corporations and labor organizations, and for other purposes. "
This would remove the requirement in current law that if you want to run an ad on TV or radio attacking a federal candidate by name, you can't use money from corporate or labor union treasuries. There are already many ways around this minimal restriction. Corporations and labor unions can still have their shareholders, executives, and members pool their individual funds into a political action committee, which can then run ads attacking candidates. Or, the corporations can send out direct mailings attacking candidates. Or, they can sponsor nefarious phone calls, asking voters things like "would you vote for Senator Joe Bloe if you knew that he smoked marijuana, dodged the draft, and beat his wife?" even if none of those things are true. The FEC is currently considering closing some of these loopholes, which would actually give the law some teeth.
But, I guess the simple fact that some politicians think that even the very minimal rules that now exist dealing with money and politics are too tough for them to live by must be yet another indication that campaign finance reform actually can work. Imagine what would happen if Congress ever passed a real reform bill.
The twelve members of Congress who apparently would like corporations to spend their shareholder's money on politics without their consent are: Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. CRANE, Mr. OTTER, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. PAUL, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. AKIN, Mrs. CUBIN, and Mr. PENCE.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Debates Should be Open
A number of former presidential candidates for the Reform, Green, and Constitution Parties filed a lawsuit today asking that third party candidates be included in future presidential debates. The lawsuit claims that the current Commission on Presidential Debates, which is funded largely by corporations, is acting in partisan fashion by only inviting the two leading candidates. Details can be found here in the Boston Globe.
In general, debates should be a larger part of our campaigns and paid ads should be a smaller part. Debates force candidates to at least somewhat address the issues that their opponents, media moderators, or even audience members are concerned about. They provide a low cost way for voters to learn about candidates, in a forum where big money holds little use. The inclusion of Ross Perot in the 1996 debates raised significant issues such as the budget deficit that the leading two candidates were ignoring. Perot's strong showing, as well as the victory of third party candidates like Jesse Ventura after inclusion in debates, indicates that the public will support some minor parties when they are given a chance to make their cases. The current Commission policy is to require candidates to achieve 15% support in the polls before inclusion in the debates. This puts the cart before the horse. Candidates should be included in debates first, to give voters a chance to see what they are all about. Then, it might make sense to eventually narrow the field in future debates. Maybe Fox TV has the right approach with their American Idol show, where viewers eliminate candidates at every show until just two finalists remain. But at least auditions are open so everyone has a chance to get their foot in the door.
A number of former presidential candidates for the Reform, Green, and Constitution Parties filed a lawsuit today asking that third party candidates be included in future presidential debates. The lawsuit claims that the current Commission on Presidential Debates, which is funded largely by corporations, is acting in partisan fashion by only inviting the two leading candidates. Details can be found here in the Boston Globe.
In general, debates should be a larger part of our campaigns and paid ads should be a smaller part. Debates force candidates to at least somewhat address the issues that their opponents, media moderators, or even audience members are concerned about. They provide a low cost way for voters to learn about candidates, in a forum where big money holds little use. The inclusion of Ross Perot in the 1996 debates raised significant issues such as the budget deficit that the leading two candidates were ignoring. Perot's strong showing, as well as the victory of third party candidates like Jesse Ventura after inclusion in debates, indicates that the public will support some minor parties when they are given a chance to make their cases. The current Commission policy is to require candidates to achieve 15% support in the polls before inclusion in the debates. This puts the cart before the horse. Candidates should be included in debates first, to give voters a chance to see what they are all about. Then, it might make sense to eventually narrow the field in future debates. Maybe Fox TV has the right approach with their American Idol show, where viewers eliminate candidates at every show until just two finalists remain. But at least auditions are open so everyone has a chance to get their foot in the door.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
South Miami Voters Boot Mayor Accused of Campaign Cash Violations
Yesterday the mayor of South Miami lost his job after voters rejected him in light of recent charges that he violated campaign finance laws. The Miami Herald reports here that Mayor Horace Feliu was arrested and charged with accepting a $1300 campaign contribution, much higher than the city's $250 limit. Feliu claims he thought the check was for his party, not his mayor's campaign, but prosecutors claim they have an undercover wiretap that proves otherwise. Seems like it would be pretty simply to just see who the check was made out to. If a trial shows Feliu was guilty, then justice will have been done. But, if Feliu is telling the truth, then the election may have been sabotaged by political operatives. Voters should stay tuned to see what the real deal is.
UPDATE: Well, turns out that at least two jurors did think that this was a political setup. Feliu was acquitted of these charges on May 27, 2004. The check was blank, so Feliu's claim that he would give the check to the party is plausible. See this story in the Sun Sentinal for details.
Yesterday the mayor of South Miami lost his job after voters rejected him in light of recent charges that he violated campaign finance laws. The Miami Herald reports here that Mayor Horace Feliu was arrested and charged with accepting a $1300 campaign contribution, much higher than the city's $250 limit. Feliu claims he thought the check was for his party, not his mayor's campaign, but prosecutors claim they have an undercover wiretap that proves otherwise. Seems like it would be pretty simply to just see who the check was made out to. If a trial shows Feliu was guilty, then justice will have been done. But, if Feliu is telling the truth, then the election may have been sabotaged by political operatives. Voters should stay tuned to see what the real deal is.
UPDATE: Well, turns out that at least two jurors did think that this was a political setup. Feliu was acquitted of these charges on May 27, 2004. The check was blank, so Feliu's claim that he would give the check to the party is plausible. See this story in the Sun Sentinal for details.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Pelosi PACs Penalized
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has paid some $21,000 in fines for violating federal campaign finance law. Pelosi is in the business of raising big bucks and giving them out to other candidates in her party. However, federal law limits the amount that she can give them from a Political Action Committee to $5000. No problem, thought Pelosi. She simply set up two different PACs and had each of them give candidates $5000. Pelosi staff claim here in the Washington Post that they had checked with the Federal Elections Commission and were told that this was legit. Maybe so, but you'd think that the people we elect to make our laws should be able to understand them. In any case, the good news is that this is just one more example that campaign finance laws can work. Break them, and you'll get caught and penalized. Maybe we should start thinking about a three strikes and you're out policy just to protect against repeat offenders.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has paid some $21,000 in fines for violating federal campaign finance law. Pelosi is in the business of raising big bucks and giving them out to other candidates in her party. However, federal law limits the amount that she can give them from a Political Action Committee to $5000. No problem, thought Pelosi. She simply set up two different PACs and had each of them give candidates $5000. Pelosi staff claim here in the Washington Post that they had checked with the Federal Elections Commission and were told that this was legit. Maybe so, but you'd think that the people we elect to make our laws should be able to understand them. In any case, the good news is that this is just one more example that campaign finance laws can work. Break them, and you'll get caught and penalized. Maybe we should start thinking about a three strikes and you're out policy just to protect against repeat offenders.
Monday, February 09, 2004
Special Interests Bankroll Effort to Repeal Arizona Campaign Finance Reform
A slew of developers and big business interests have chipped in five to ten thousand bucks a piece to repeal Arizona's campaign finance law. You can view the campaigns financial disclosure report here. Here's a link to the individual contributors.
Looking at just the first one, we find J.R. Norton company giving $5000. J.R. Norton is a agricultural company run by Jon R. Norton the Third. Norton served as the US Deputy Secretary of Agricultural affairs in the 1980s and was accused of trying to corporatize farming and run many small farmers out of existence. He's quoted as saying
"while America has 2.3 million farms at present, the most efficient American agriculture would require lass than half a million farms. If free-market forces were allowed to operate, agriculture would become consolidated into fewer, more efficient farms, the way huge retail chains have replaced mom and pop grocery stores." Just what we need, the Walmartization of family farms.
In May 2003, his Norton Farms in Blythe, California got its waste discharge requirements terminated. Here's a 1981 lawsuit against him for illegally firing his lettuce pickers because they wanted to form a union. In 1988, agricultural labor relations board staff concluded that Norton owed his farmworkers some $850,000 for illegally firing them because they wanted to unionize. Norton has has sat on many corporate boards, including Terra Industries, the Appolo Group, Shamrock Foods, and Pinnacle West (which runs nuclear power plants and has real estate holdings.)
A quick search here at the Federal Elections Commission indicates that John Norton of Paradise Valley, AZ has given at least $23,700 in contributions to federal candidates and parties from 1998-2003.
Suffice to say that John R. Norton the Third is not like the rest of us. He's a powerful, wealthy man, who knows how to spread his political influence around. If he doesn't like a reform law, maybe that's a sign that it is working as intended.
The anti-reformers say they want to save the taxpayers the money needed to fund the program. But somehow that just isn't too convincing coming from folks who tend to have a lot of business to do with government and who are finding it's harder for them to elect lackeys to do their bidding when other candidates have a chance to compete on a level playing field. Plus, some of the money is from a surcharge on traffic and criminal fines, so its not like ending that will save honest taxpayers a dime.
The campaign brags here in the Arizona Republic that they are flattered by the outpouring of grassroots support for their initiative. But then they admit that the only way they are gathering signatures is by paying circulators to do so. Their financial disclosure indicates that many of their payments are for signature gathering, or else to pad the pockets of consultant Nathan Sproul. That doesn't exactly sound like people are beating down their doors to sign their petition.
A slew of developers and big business interests have chipped in five to ten thousand bucks a piece to repeal Arizona's campaign finance law. You can view the campaigns financial disclosure report here. Here's a link to the individual contributors.
Looking at just the first one, we find J.R. Norton company giving $5000. J.R. Norton is a agricultural company run by Jon R. Norton the Third. Norton served as the US Deputy Secretary of Agricultural affairs in the 1980s and was accused of trying to corporatize farming and run many small farmers out of existence. He's quoted as saying
"while America has 2.3 million farms at present, the most efficient American agriculture would require lass than half a million farms. If free-market forces were allowed to operate, agriculture would become consolidated into fewer, more efficient farms, the way huge retail chains have replaced mom and pop grocery stores." Just what we need, the Walmartization of family farms.
In May 2003, his Norton Farms in Blythe, California got its waste discharge requirements terminated. Here's a 1981 lawsuit against him for illegally firing his lettuce pickers because they wanted to form a union. In 1988, agricultural labor relations board staff concluded that Norton owed his farmworkers some $850,000 for illegally firing them because they wanted to unionize. Norton has has sat on many corporate boards, including Terra Industries, the Appolo Group, Shamrock Foods, and Pinnacle West (which runs nuclear power plants and has real estate holdings.)
A quick search here at the Federal Elections Commission indicates that John Norton of Paradise Valley, AZ has given at least $23,700 in contributions to federal candidates and parties from 1998-2003.
Suffice to say that John R. Norton the Third is not like the rest of us. He's a powerful, wealthy man, who knows how to spread his political influence around. If he doesn't like a reform law, maybe that's a sign that it is working as intended.
The anti-reformers say they want to save the taxpayers the money needed to fund the program. But somehow that just isn't too convincing coming from folks who tend to have a lot of business to do with government and who are finding it's harder for them to elect lackeys to do their bidding when other candidates have a chance to compete on a level playing field. Plus, some of the money is from a surcharge on traffic and criminal fines, so its not like ending that will save honest taxpayers a dime.
The campaign brags here in the Arizona Republic that they are flattered by the outpouring of grassroots support for their initiative. But then they admit that the only way they are gathering signatures is by paying circulators to do so. Their financial disclosure indicates that many of their payments are for signature gathering, or else to pad the pockets of consultant Nathan Sproul. That doesn't exactly sound like people are beating down their doors to sign their petition.
