Friday, April 09, 2004
Schwarzenegger Makes, then Breaks, His Own Campaign Finance Rules
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has a penchant for declaring himself to be free of special interest associations, announcing self-imposed rules to ensure this, and then breaking them. When he first announced his candidacy during the special recall election, he pledged that he would not accept campaign contributions from special interests with business before the state. Then, he basically narrowed the definition of special interest to include only people who disagreed with him, mostly labor unions and Native American tribes.
The latest example is with the Governator's pledge to not accept contributions after March 2 from insurance companies for his ballot question campaigns. But, his campaign committee cashed a $100,00 check from the workers compensation insurance company American Financial Group two days after the election. His aides say its OK since the money was pledged before the election. See the full story in the San Jose Mercury News here.
Splitting hairs about the timing of a corporate contribution to a campaign that will impact that corporations bottom line misses the point. Corporations exist to maximize profits, while governments exist to make rules that ensure that corporations treat the rest of us fairly and honestly while pursing their private gain. To have those corporate interests then use their money to help write the rules that govern their behavior messes up the very fundamentals of the system.
If he really wants to clean up Sacramento, Schwarzenegger should stop inventing self-imposed restrictions that have little value, and focus instead on enacting mandatory campaign finance reform that would apply evenly to all candidates all the time.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has a penchant for declaring himself to be free of special interest associations, announcing self-imposed rules to ensure this, and then breaking them. When he first announced his candidacy during the special recall election, he pledged that he would not accept campaign contributions from special interests with business before the state. Then, he basically narrowed the definition of special interest to include only people who disagreed with him, mostly labor unions and Native American tribes.
The latest example is with the Governator's pledge to not accept contributions after March 2 from insurance companies for his ballot question campaigns. But, his campaign committee cashed a $100,00 check from the workers compensation insurance company American Financial Group two days after the election. His aides say its OK since the money was pledged before the election. See the full story in the San Jose Mercury News here.
Splitting hairs about the timing of a corporate contribution to a campaign that will impact that corporations bottom line misses the point. Corporations exist to maximize profits, while governments exist to make rules that ensure that corporations treat the rest of us fairly and honestly while pursing their private gain. To have those corporate interests then use their money to help write the rules that govern their behavior messes up the very fundamentals of the system.
If he really wants to clean up Sacramento, Schwarzenegger should stop inventing self-imposed restrictions that have little value, and focus instead on enacting mandatory campaign finance reform that would apply evenly to all candidates all the time.
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Maybe We Could Learn Something from College Students
All too often, the things they teach you in school don't relate much to the real world. But, here's an example of something that maybe should. The students at Colorado State University have sensibly set a limit of $3000 on anyone's campaign for student government -- down from $3500 last year. I guess this way the rich kids don't always get elected as student body president. And, after all, college students probably need to be spending their money on other things besides politics -- like textbooks and pizza.
Seems like the system worked pretty well. According to this article, one campaign had a problem keeping track of their expenditures and came within $1.52 of the limit. Some were worried they'd be disqualified. In the end, a careful audit revealed that they had complied with the limit. Can you imagine if a candidate for the US President were disqualified for failing to comply with campaign finance law?
All too often, the things they teach you in school don't relate much to the real world. But, here's an example of something that maybe should. The students at Colorado State University have sensibly set a limit of $3000 on anyone's campaign for student government -- down from $3500 last year. I guess this way the rich kids don't always get elected as student body president. And, after all, college students probably need to be spending their money on other things besides politics -- like textbooks and pizza.
Seems like the system worked pretty well. According to this article, one campaign had a problem keeping track of their expenditures and came within $1.52 of the limit. Some were worried they'd be disqualified. In the end, a careful audit revealed that they had complied with the limit. Can you imagine if a candidate for the US President were disqualified for failing to comply with campaign finance law?
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Good News In Portland
The Portland City Council unanimously passed a resolution calling for the study of a comprehensive campaign finance system today. Details can be found here in a post by Maureen Kirk, executive director of OSPIRG.
In testifying before the commission, Kirk said:
"What we hear from the public is that excessive campaign spending has turned many elections from being contests of ideas into mass marketing campaigns that bear a closer resemblance to product advertisements than serious policy debates. This big money style of campaigning is detrimental to voter education and to the values of free speech and vigorous public debate.
OSPIRG supports many policy solutions to remedy this problem, and no one policy is a panacea, but an opportunity to develop a key policy solution for Portland is before you today. By authorizing the development of policy proposals to move the city toward the public financing of elections, you will be taking an important step toward bringing average Portland residents into the election process and leveling the playing field between average Portlanders and big money special interests."
As they say, it ain't over till it's over. This only starts the process and several members seem to have voiced concerns that will need to be overcome. But, this is a great start and goes to show that citizens can make a difference when they get themselves organized.
The Portland City Council unanimously passed a resolution calling for the study of a comprehensive campaign finance system today. Details can be found here in a post by Maureen Kirk, executive director of OSPIRG.
In testifying before the commission, Kirk said:
"What we hear from the public is that excessive campaign spending has turned many elections from being contests of ideas into mass marketing campaigns that bear a closer resemblance to product advertisements than serious policy debates. This big money style of campaigning is detrimental to voter education and to the values of free speech and vigorous public debate.
OSPIRG supports many policy solutions to remedy this problem, and no one policy is a panacea, but an opportunity to develop a key policy solution for Portland is before you today. By authorizing the development of policy proposals to move the city toward the public financing of elections, you will be taking an important step toward bringing average Portland residents into the election process and leveling the playing field between average Portlanders and big money special interests."
As they say, it ain't over till it's over. This only starts the process and several members seem to have voiced concerns that will need to be overcome. But, this is a great start and goes to show that citizens can make a difference when they get themselves organized.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
More on the Portland Mayors Race and Hope for Reform
As I noted in the March 25 Daily Post, spending in local elections in Portland, Oregon is going through the roof. Here are two new stories from the Oregonian and The Portland Herald.
Apparently, even after adjusting for inflation, spending on Portland elections has increased three to four fold since the 1970s. The candidate who has raised the most money has won 97 out of the last 108 elections -- about ninety percent of the time.
You have to wonder if voters feel better informed about the issues as a result of the increased spending, or if they have been turned away from politics instead. Janice Thompson, who heads a group called the Money in Politics Research and Action Project says that "It creates a situation where people get disgusted and wonder, 'Why should I bother to vote when those people making the campaign contributions are the ones who have the real say?' " Janice's group found that one incumbent (who is proposing the reform) raised money from much larger donors once in office than he did when he first ran.
The City Council will consider a reform proposal tomorrow, Wed. April 7 at 10 AM. The idea would be that candidates who accept no private money would receive public financing after they qualify by showing significant grassroots support. If you live in Portland, you should stop by. The outgoing mayor strongly supports reform, so that should help.
As I noted in the March 25 Daily Post, spending in local elections in Portland, Oregon is going through the roof. Here are two new stories from the Oregonian and The Portland Herald.
Apparently, even after adjusting for inflation, spending on Portland elections has increased three to four fold since the 1970s. The candidate who has raised the most money has won 97 out of the last 108 elections -- about ninety percent of the time.
You have to wonder if voters feel better informed about the issues as a result of the increased spending, or if they have been turned away from politics instead. Janice Thompson, who heads a group called the Money in Politics Research and Action Project says that "It creates a situation where people get disgusted and wonder, 'Why should I bother to vote when those people making the campaign contributions are the ones who have the real say?' " Janice's group found that one incumbent (who is proposing the reform) raised money from much larger donors once in office than he did when he first ran.
The City Council will consider a reform proposal tomorrow, Wed. April 7 at 10 AM. The idea would be that candidates who accept no private money would receive public financing after they qualify by showing significant grassroots support. If you live in Portland, you should stop by. The outgoing mayor strongly supports reform, so that should help.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Insurance Companies Pay Big Fine for Breaking Campaign Finance Law
American Bankers Insurance Company has agreed to pay a million dollar fine for breaking the law in Minnesota. Minnesota bars corporate contributions to political campaigns, but American Bankers allegedly funneled money into the state via an arm of the National Republican Party. They were trying to prevent independent candidate Tim Penny (a former member of Congress known for standing up to private interests) from winning the governor's seat. See the full story here in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. (free registration required.)
There are at least two lessons that citizens can learn from this case:
1) Campaign finance laws can work, especially if they hold individuals responsible. In this case, two corporate executives faced personal fines of up to $20,000 and potential jail time. They decided they'd rather cop a plea and have the company pay $1 million than face personal penalties themselves. This may be a raw deal for their shareholders, but it does at least establish a penalty tough enough to deter future lawbreakers.
2) These donors weren't worried about buying access with a politician, or even supporting one party over the other. They were scared that someone who didn't share their corporate interest agenda would win, and were trying to influence election results with big money. In this case, the big money interests would have been happy with politicians from either the Democratic or Republican Party, both of whom they evidently feel would stand up for their interests. Yet another example of how reform proponents are missing the bigger problems when they focus on access selling or quid pro quo corruption.
American Bankers Insurance Company has agreed to pay a million dollar fine for breaking the law in Minnesota. Minnesota bars corporate contributions to political campaigns, but American Bankers allegedly funneled money into the state via an arm of the National Republican Party. They were trying to prevent independent candidate Tim Penny (a former member of Congress known for standing up to private interests) from winning the governor's seat. See the full story here in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. (free registration required.)
There are at least two lessons that citizens can learn from this case:
1) Campaign finance laws can work, especially if they hold individuals responsible. In this case, two corporate executives faced personal fines of up to $20,000 and potential jail time. They decided they'd rather cop a plea and have the company pay $1 million than face personal penalties themselves. This may be a raw deal for their shareholders, but it does at least establish a penalty tough enough to deter future lawbreakers.
2) These donors weren't worried about buying access with a politician, or even supporting one party over the other. They were scared that someone who didn't share their corporate interest agenda would win, and were trying to influence election results with big money. In this case, the big money interests would have been happy with politicians from either the Democratic or Republican Party, both of whom they evidently feel would stand up for their interests. Yet another example of how reform proponents are missing the bigger problems when they focus on access selling or quid pro quo corruption.
