Thursday, April 22, 2004
Political Consultant Tells the Truth!
As shocking as this may be to some people, Los Angeles Times Columnist George Skelton appears to have run across an honest campaign consultant.
When asked about the influence of money on public policy, Darry Sragow, who runs campaigns for the California Assembly, tells Skelton:
The refreshing thing about Sragow's quote is that it makes clear that the undue influence of big money on politics happens without any explicit agreement, or quid pro quo, where the donor says "here, I'll give you this money if you vote a certain way on this bill I care about." In fact, the politician doesn't even need to grant access to the donor, or speak to them at all for the contribution to have its intended effect. This is why reforms that prevent donors from giving big money to candidates but still allow them to give big money to parties, PACs, and other electioneering groups don't really stop the influence of big donors on the political process.
Even thought it might seem like it sometimes, politicians are no dummies. They can quickly figure out what an oil company executive would want them to do on a bill that impacts the oil industry, or what a meat-packer would want on a bill dealing with mad cow disease. Politicians then calculate whether or not they can afford to alienate that particular donor and still win the next election. If so, then maybe they vote against the donors interest. But if not, it's pretty easy to rationalize a vote against the public interest and in favor of a private interest by telling yourself that if you don't vote with the donor, you'll just get replaced by someone else who will next time.
As shocking as this may be to some people, Los Angeles Times Columnist George Skelton appears to have run across an honest campaign consultant.
When asked about the influence of money on public policy, Darry Sragow, who runs campaigns for the California Assembly, tells Skelton:
"Contributions clearly do affect policy decisions. Because if you vote against the interests of someone who has been a significant supporter, it only makes sense that person will become less of a significant supporter or a politician's worst nightmare, a significant opponent. You vote against those interests at your peril."
The refreshing thing about Sragow's quote is that it makes clear that the undue influence of big money on politics happens without any explicit agreement, or quid pro quo, where the donor says "here, I'll give you this money if you vote a certain way on this bill I care about." In fact, the politician doesn't even need to grant access to the donor, or speak to them at all for the contribution to have its intended effect. This is why reforms that prevent donors from giving big money to candidates but still allow them to give big money to parties, PACs, and other electioneering groups don't really stop the influence of big donors on the political process.
Even thought it might seem like it sometimes, politicians are no dummies. They can quickly figure out what an oil company executive would want them to do on a bill that impacts the oil industry, or what a meat-packer would want on a bill dealing with mad cow disease. Politicians then calculate whether or not they can afford to alienate that particular donor and still win the next election. If so, then maybe they vote against the donors interest. But if not, it's pretty easy to rationalize a vote against the public interest and in favor of a private interest by telling yourself that if you don't vote with the donor, you'll just get replaced by someone else who will next time.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
California May Pull the Plug on Electronic Voting with no Voter Receipts
The California Secretary of State has commissioned a Voting Systems Panel to decide whether or not to decertify electronic "touch screen" voting machines for the upcoming November election. Some counties in California have led the country in adopting these new machines, which are similar in many ways to ATM machines. But, there have been many problems with the machines so far. Some counties have had problems programming the "smart cards" that voters need to insert into machines to pull up their correct ballots. Orange County had pollworkers giving some voters the incorrect smart cards, so they cast votes in districts other than where the lived. There are also indications that some machines had been programmed with "patches" that had not been certified by the Secretary of State. Some of these problems could be alleviated if, like ATMs, the voting machines printed out a paper receipt that the voter could look at to ensure that their vote was correctly recorded. Then, in cases of disputed results, these receipts could be used for recounts.
Many citizens, organized by groups like Black Box Voting and True Majority and the California Voter Foundation showed up for hearings held by the Voting Systems Panel today in Sacramento.
The California Secretary of State has commissioned a Voting Systems Panel to decide whether or not to decertify electronic "touch screen" voting machines for the upcoming November election. Some counties in California have led the country in adopting these new machines, which are similar in many ways to ATM machines. But, there have been many problems with the machines so far. Some counties have had problems programming the "smart cards" that voters need to insert into machines to pull up their correct ballots. Orange County had pollworkers giving some voters the incorrect smart cards, so they cast votes in districts other than where the lived. There are also indications that some machines had been programmed with "patches" that had not been certified by the Secretary of State. Some of these problems could be alleviated if, like ATMs, the voting machines printed out a paper receipt that the voter could look at to ensure that their vote was correctly recorded. Then, in cases of disputed results, these receipts could be used for recounts.
Many citizens, organized by groups like Black Box Voting and True Majority and the California Voter Foundation showed up for hearings held by the Voting Systems Panel today in Sacramento.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
McCain-Feingold "Reform" Boosts Lobbyist Contributions
Today's New York Times reports that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as the McCain-Feingold bill, has led to a 53% increase in contributions from lobbyists to federal politicians. This is not at all surprising, given that the law doubled the amount that any lobbyist can give to a politician from $1000 to $2000, and took the total amount that any lobbyist can give to all their favorite politicians and parties from $50,000 to $95,000. Those aren't amounts that the rest of us can fork over, but highly paid lobbyists seem to be managing no problem.
The McCain-Feingold bill banned parties, but not outside groups, from raising and spending unlimited soft money contributions. However, according to a 2001 study that I helped design called Lobbyists Last Laugh, 92% of the funds previously given by lobbyists were hard money contributions to candidates, not soft money gifts to parties. So, it was easy to predict that this so-called reform would be a boon to lobbyists. Given that the candidate who raises the most money wins about 95% of the time, this gives any member of Congress second thoughts before they decide to stand up to the lobbyists on Gucci Gulch.
Today's New York Times reports that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as the McCain-Feingold bill, has led to a 53% increase in contributions from lobbyists to federal politicians. This is not at all surprising, given that the law doubled the amount that any lobbyist can give to a politician from $1000 to $2000, and took the total amount that any lobbyist can give to all their favorite politicians and parties from $50,000 to $95,000. Those aren't amounts that the rest of us can fork over, but highly paid lobbyists seem to be managing no problem.
The McCain-Feingold bill banned parties, but not outside groups, from raising and spending unlimited soft money contributions. However, according to a 2001 study that I helped design called Lobbyists Last Laugh, 92% of the funds previously given by lobbyists were hard money contributions to candidates, not soft money gifts to parties. So, it was easy to predict that this so-called reform would be a boon to lobbyists. Given that the candidate who raises the most money wins about 95% of the time, this gives any member of Congress second thoughts before they decide to stand up to the lobbyists on Gucci Gulch.
Monday, April 19, 2004
Courts Got in Wrong in Buckley v. Valeo
Loyola law professor Rick Hasen has an interesting op-ed column in today's Los Angeles Times. Hasen correctly points out that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) has done little to reduce the role of big money in politics. For this, he blames the Supreme Court and its 1976 ruling Buckley v. Valeo that said money in politics was free speech and struck down mandatory spending limits. He writes that
This is just plain wrong, as Hasen points out:
Hasen suggests that the Court may be willing to reconsider it's past mistake. Let's hope he's right.
As to Congress, Hasen let's them off the hook too easily for the failures of its most recent reform. While it is true that the Court has somewhat tied their hands, no judge forced Congress to double the limits on hard money funds that candidates raise from large donors. This will be one of the main reasons that BCRA could do more harm than good. However, Professor Hasen does offer an intriguing idea for a reform that Congress could take up: Banning all private money in elections while giving each voter $100 to pass on to any candidate, party, or political group of their choosing. Reformers need more creative solutions and this is one worth taking a look at.
Loyola law professor Rick Hasen has an interesting op-ed column in today's Los Angeles Times. Hasen correctly points out that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) has done little to reduce the role of big money in politics. For this, he blames the Supreme Court and its 1976 ruling Buckley v. Valeo that said money in politics was free speech and struck down mandatory spending limits. He writes that
"In a particularly crucial part of the decision, the court rejected the idea that Congress had an interest in leveling the political playing field. Promoting political equality by limiting campaign spending, the court said, was an idea "wholly foreign to the 1st Amendment."
This is just plain wrong, as Hasen points out:
"Leveling the playing field is not the bad idea that the court seemed to think it was in Buckley.
Most Americans today accept the one person, one vote ideal, and, consistent with that ideal, it is simply wrong that economic power should be so easily translated into political power. Wealth should not determine one's ability to run for office, nor should it affect the outcome of close election campaigns."
Hasen suggests that the Court may be willing to reconsider it's past mistake. Let's hope he's right.
As to Congress, Hasen let's them off the hook too easily for the failures of its most recent reform. While it is true that the Court has somewhat tied their hands, no judge forced Congress to double the limits on hard money funds that candidates raise from large donors. This will be one of the main reasons that BCRA could do more harm than good. However, Professor Hasen does offer an intriguing idea for a reform that Congress could take up: Banning all private money in elections while giving each voter $100 to pass on to any candidate, party, or political group of their choosing. Reformers need more creative solutions and this is one worth taking a look at.
