Thursday, February 26, 2004
Alaska Candidate Sues to Stop Opponents from Taking Out of State Contributions
Jim Sykes is running for the U.S. Senate in Alaska. He has some tough competition, including the incumbent Lisa Murkowski (daughter of Alaska's governor Frank Murkowski) and former Alaska Governor Tony Knowles. Those two candidates are raking in lots of campaign money from people and Political Action Committees who don't live in Alaska. So, Jim Sykes is going to court to try to create a more level playing field among Alaskans.
Sykes says that "Letting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars into the campaigns from out-of-state allows non-Alaskan interests to play too large a role in who Alaskans choose to elect." He plans on raising about $500,000 for his campaign from Alaska citizens, and says that this would make him competitive with his opponents if they weren't taking big money from out of state.
With his opponents accepting large out of state contributions, Syke's lawsuit claims that they will "drown out [his] communication with Alaska voters" and will "severely burden [his] right to associate politically with Alaska voters for the purpose of persuading voters to support his candidacy."
Senator Murkowski says in response that her votes aren't influenced by contributions. But, if she can't win election without taking contributions from people who don't live in her state, can she truly be said to be representing her constituents?
The story is available here in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.
Alaska is the only state that currently limits contributions from out of state residents for its state elections such as Governor. This law has been upheld by the Alaska Supreme Court. However, Alaska does not have the legal ability to set its own rules for how to elect its own congressional delegation. Congress took that power away from it and said that only the federal government can craft laws dealing with federal elections. So, this lawsuit may be Alaskan's only chance to get the type of elections they want.
Jim Sykes is running for the U.S. Senate in Alaska. He has some tough competition, including the incumbent Lisa Murkowski (daughter of Alaska's governor Frank Murkowski) and former Alaska Governor Tony Knowles. Those two candidates are raking in lots of campaign money from people and Political Action Committees who don't live in Alaska. So, Jim Sykes is going to court to try to create a more level playing field among Alaskans.
Sykes says that "Letting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars into the campaigns from out-of-state allows non-Alaskan interests to play too large a role in who Alaskans choose to elect." He plans on raising about $500,000 for his campaign from Alaska citizens, and says that this would make him competitive with his opponents if they weren't taking big money from out of state.
With his opponents accepting large out of state contributions, Syke's lawsuit claims that they will "drown out [his] communication with Alaska voters" and will "severely burden [his] right to associate politically with Alaska voters for the purpose of persuading voters to support his candidacy."
Senator Murkowski says in response that her votes aren't influenced by contributions. But, if she can't win election without taking contributions from people who don't live in her state, can she truly be said to be representing her constituents?
The story is available here in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.
Alaska is the only state that currently limits contributions from out of state residents for its state elections such as Governor. This law has been upheld by the Alaska Supreme Court. However, Alaska does not have the legal ability to set its own rules for how to elect its own congressional delegation. Congress took that power away from it and said that only the federal government can craft laws dealing with federal elections. So, this lawsuit may be Alaskan's only chance to get the type of elections they want.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Are Senators Profiting Off Insider Information?
The Financial Times reports here that United States Senators did twelve percent better in the stock market than the rest of us did, as measured by market averages. The business professor who compiled this data was "very surprised" and said that "the results suggest that Senators knew when to buy their common stocks and when to sell."
It distorts the financial marketplace when anyone uses information not available to regular investors to reap extraordinary profits. It's particularly troubling if the people who we elect to create a stable and fair marketplace are themselves distorting it for personal gain. Politicians could avoid any chance of wrong doing by placing their personal funds into blind trusts while they are in office.
The Financial Times reports here that United States Senators did twelve percent better in the stock market than the rest of us did, as measured by market averages. The business professor who compiled this data was "very surprised" and said that "the results suggest that Senators knew when to buy their common stocks and when to sell."
It distorts the financial marketplace when anyone uses information not available to regular investors to reap extraordinary profits. It's particularly troubling if the people who we elect to create a stable and fair marketplace are themselves distorting it for personal gain. Politicians could avoid any chance of wrong doing by placing their personal funds into blind trusts while they are in office.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Asking the Wrong Question: Does Money Buy Public Policy?
A recent study put out by well meaning good government types at the University of Illinois illustrates the weaknesses in a lot of reform movement thinking.
The authors set out to discover whether big contributions from lawyers, horse racetrack owners, liquor and soft drink distributors, gamblers, and power plants impacted legislative votes. They uses fancy statistical methods to control for factors like legislator's ideology, party affiliation and whether or not they are from safe districts and will face little competition.
The research finds, not surprisingly, that "campaign contributions influence roll call votes and public policy in the Illinois General Assembly." No kidding?
The problem with this sort of analysis is that is presumes that it is somehow bad for people to use money to to influence how legislators vote on something, but fine for people to use money to influence whether or not voters should elected those legislators in the first place.
As an example, say a casino gives Joe Politician $5000 and Joe Politician then votes to allow more gambling, has public policy been bought?
The authors of this study would have us believe that the answer to that question lies in whether or not Joe Politician's judgment was swayed by the contribution. But, say we find out that Joe Politician believes in gambling. His daddy was a gambler, he's been gambling himself since junior high, and he sees nothing wrong with it. So, did the $5000 influence public policy?
The report authors would control for Joe Politician's ideology and conclude that in this case his vote wasn't bought by the $5000. He was voting his conscience.
But who cares? The real question is not whether Joe Politician was personally influenced by the campaign money, but in whether or not the constituents who live in Joe Politician's district agreed with the vote he cast in their name on the issue of gambling. If Joe Politician represents a district of nuns, schoolteachers, and do-gooders, and he wins election by using the $5000 get gets from the gamblers to outspend and defeat a candidate who would have voted against the casinos, then clearly public policy has been bought. On the other hand, if Joe Politician represents a bunch of gamblers, pool husslers, and blackjack dealers, then arguably the $5000 contribution didn't buy public policy in this instance.
The bottom line is this: powerful interests spend money on campaigns for two reasons. One, to influence how an elected official votes. Two, to influence how voters vote in elections. Different donors may have different motivations at different times. But, by focusing only on the first motivation, good government reformers miss at least half the picture, and arguably the most important half.
One thing's for sure. The big donors sure know what they get out of giving. And they keep giving more and more, so they must think they're getting their money's worth. That's more than the rest of us can say.
A recent study put out by well meaning good government types at the University of Illinois illustrates the weaknesses in a lot of reform movement thinking.
The authors set out to discover whether big contributions from lawyers, horse racetrack owners, liquor and soft drink distributors, gamblers, and power plants impacted legislative votes. They uses fancy statistical methods to control for factors like legislator's ideology, party affiliation and whether or not they are from safe districts and will face little competition.
The research finds, not surprisingly, that "campaign contributions influence roll call votes and public policy in the Illinois General Assembly." No kidding?
The problem with this sort of analysis is that is presumes that it is somehow bad for people to use money to to influence how legislators vote on something, but fine for people to use money to influence whether or not voters should elected those legislators in the first place.
As an example, say a casino gives Joe Politician $5000 and Joe Politician then votes to allow more gambling, has public policy been bought?
The authors of this study would have us believe that the answer to that question lies in whether or not Joe Politician's judgment was swayed by the contribution. But, say we find out that Joe Politician believes in gambling. His daddy was a gambler, he's been gambling himself since junior high, and he sees nothing wrong with it. So, did the $5000 influence public policy?
The report authors would control for Joe Politician's ideology and conclude that in this case his vote wasn't bought by the $5000. He was voting his conscience.
But who cares? The real question is not whether Joe Politician was personally influenced by the campaign money, but in whether or not the constituents who live in Joe Politician's district agreed with the vote he cast in their name on the issue of gambling. If Joe Politician represents a district of nuns, schoolteachers, and do-gooders, and he wins election by using the $5000 get gets from the gamblers to outspend and defeat a candidate who would have voted against the casinos, then clearly public policy has been bought. On the other hand, if Joe Politician represents a bunch of gamblers, pool husslers, and blackjack dealers, then arguably the $5000 contribution didn't buy public policy in this instance.
The bottom line is this: powerful interests spend money on campaigns for two reasons. One, to influence how an elected official votes. Two, to influence how voters vote in elections. Different donors may have different motivations at different times. But, by focusing only on the first motivation, good government reformers miss at least half the picture, and arguably the most important half.
One thing's for sure. The big donors sure know what they get out of giving. And they keep giving more and more, so they must think they're getting their money's worth. That's more than the rest of us can say.
Monday, February 23, 2004
Politicians Lining Their Own Pockets With Campaign Funds
Two recent stories highlight a trend of politicians using campaign funds to pay for their own personal expenses. I suppose that in addition to honorable men and women, there have always been unscrupulous people attracted to politics for their own gain. But, you have to wonder if a campaign finance system that trains candidates to grovel for money from powerful donors doesn't tend to encourage this sort of thing even more.
First, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin reports that State Senator Cal Kawamoto used campaign contributions to by himself a new truck and even to cover his traffic tickets.
Second, AP reporter Steve Lawrence writes here that California Assemblymen Ron Calderon and Ed Chavez have used campaign funds to take junkets to Las Vegas. Other California politicians have used campaign funds to buy baseball equipment, eat out in nice restaurants, or travel as far as Hawaii, Iceland, or even Cuba!
I have no problem with politicians wanting to drive trucks, eat out, or cruise the Vega strip. But, when the rest of us want to do these things, we have to dig into our own pockets. If there is some compelling governmental interest why the citizens of Hawaii or California need their public servants to travel, then the state should pick up the tab. But to have politicians using special interest money to pay for what looks like personal expenses is just plain wrong.
Two recent stories highlight a trend of politicians using campaign funds to pay for their own personal expenses. I suppose that in addition to honorable men and women, there have always been unscrupulous people attracted to politics for their own gain. But, you have to wonder if a campaign finance system that trains candidates to grovel for money from powerful donors doesn't tend to encourage this sort of thing even more.
First, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin reports that State Senator Cal Kawamoto used campaign contributions to by himself a new truck and even to cover his traffic tickets.
Second, AP reporter Steve Lawrence writes here that California Assemblymen Ron Calderon and Ed Chavez have used campaign funds to take junkets to Las Vegas. Other California politicians have used campaign funds to buy baseball equipment, eat out in nice restaurants, or travel as far as Hawaii, Iceland, or even Cuba!
I have no problem with politicians wanting to drive trucks, eat out, or cruise the Vega strip. But, when the rest of us want to do these things, we have to dig into our own pockets. If there is some compelling governmental interest why the citizens of Hawaii or California need their public servants to travel, then the state should pick up the tab. But to have politicians using special interest money to pay for what looks like personal expenses is just plain wrong.
