Friday, April 30, 2004
Orange County Politicians Want to Raise Even Bigger Contributions
Chris Norby is a county supervisor in southern California. He's upset because his favorite wealthy interests can only give him $1400 under the local campaign finance laws. I guess he has different friends than the rest of us, who can't give anywhere near that amount due more to our family finances than what any law might say.
So, Norby is leading an effort to raise the contribution limits up to $3400 -- the same very high amount set by the state for legislators. Norby says here, in the Los Angeles Times, that the current limits -- called TINCUP -- haven't led to better local government:
His solution is to inject more money into politics, rather than less. Perhaps the problem with the current law is that it was initiated by business interests who thought it was getting too expensive for them to dominate local elections. By setting limits that were still beyond the reach of most citizens, they were able to keep their advantage in determining who wins elections while spending less to do it. If that's the case, perhaps the solution lies more in lowering contribution limits rather than raising them.
Chris Norby is a county supervisor in southern California. He's upset because his favorite wealthy interests can only give him $1400 under the local campaign finance laws. I guess he has different friends than the rest of us, who can't give anywhere near that amount due more to our family finances than what any law might say.
So, Norby is leading an effort to raise the contribution limits up to $3400 -- the same very high amount set by the state for legislators. Norby says here, in the Los Angeles Times, that the current limits -- called TINCUP -- haven't led to better local government:
"Since TINCUP [passed], we've had four supervisors forced to resign, two supervisors indicted and one treasurer jailed as a result of the biggest municipal bankruptcy in history," Norby said. "TINCUP hasn't done anything to clean up politics."
His solution is to inject more money into politics, rather than less. Perhaps the problem with the current law is that it was initiated by business interests who thought it was getting too expensive for them to dominate local elections. By setting limits that were still beyond the reach of most citizens, they were able to keep their advantage in determining who wins elections while spending less to do it. If that's the case, perhaps the solution lies more in lowering contribution limits rather than raising them.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Yet Another McCain-Feingold Loophole
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as the McCain-Feingold bill, was passed in 2001 to "ban soft money" from the political process. In exchange for this "ban," Congress doubled the limits on "hard" money that goes directly to candidates.
Well, as it turns out, the "ban" isn't really a "ban." Soft money has shifted from the political parties to outside electioneering groups, but it hasn't disappeared. Chris Suellentrop at Slate Magazine reports here that soft money can still be used for Internet advertising, even by political parties. In fact, candidates, parties, and outside groups can run things that look just like TV ads on the Internet, and bypass a whole host of campaign finance regulations.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as the McCain-Feingold bill, was passed in 2001 to "ban soft money" from the political process. In exchange for this "ban," Congress doubled the limits on "hard" money that goes directly to candidates.
Well, as it turns out, the "ban" isn't really a "ban." Soft money has shifted from the political parties to outside electioneering groups, but it hasn't disappeared. Chris Suellentrop at Slate Magazine reports here that soft money can still be used for Internet advertising, even by political parties. In fact, candidates, parties, and outside groups can run things that look just like TV ads on the Internet, and bypass a whole host of campaign finance regulations.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Court Demands More Proof that Spending Limits Work
A federal appeals court refused yesterday to support mandatory limits on candidate spending in Albuquerque, New Mexico. You can read their full ruling here.
Albuquerque voters enacted tough spending limits in 1974 by a vote of 90% to 10%. Clearly the voters felt like they had enough proof that big money in politics had gotten out of control and they decided to do something about it. The United States Supreme Court nixed spending limits that applied to congressional races in 1976 (the infamous Buckley v. Valeo ruling that wrong equated unlimited candidates spending with free speech). But, Albuquerque's limits remained in place through 1997, and their elections generally went just fine.
But, then some big money candidates decided they wanted to challenge Albuquerque's law, so they hired some lawyers and got busy. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals took their side. The Court said that while its entirely possible that Albuquerque's spending limits are OK, Albuquerque hadn't proven it. The Court basically said that spending limits are guilty until proven innocent, and the City hadn't shown enough evidence to back up its claims that the spending limits were needed to reduce corruption, reduce time that candidates spend fundraising, or preserving electoral competition. And the Court refused to even entertain the most obvious reason for spending limits -- creating a level playing field among all candidates.
So there you have it. The evidence that was good enough for 90 percent of the voters wasn't good enough for a couple of unelected judges. Sounds like another case of rampant judicial activism to me.
A federal appeals court refused yesterday to support mandatory limits on candidate spending in Albuquerque, New Mexico. You can read their full ruling here.
Albuquerque voters enacted tough spending limits in 1974 by a vote of 90% to 10%. Clearly the voters felt like they had enough proof that big money in politics had gotten out of control and they decided to do something about it. The United States Supreme Court nixed spending limits that applied to congressional races in 1976 (the infamous Buckley v. Valeo ruling that wrong equated unlimited candidates spending with free speech). But, Albuquerque's limits remained in place through 1997, and their elections generally went just fine.
But, then some big money candidates decided they wanted to challenge Albuquerque's law, so they hired some lawyers and got busy. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals took their side. The Court said that while its entirely possible that Albuquerque's spending limits are OK, Albuquerque hadn't proven it. The Court basically said that spending limits are guilty until proven innocent, and the City hadn't shown enough evidence to back up its claims that the spending limits were needed to reduce corruption, reduce time that candidates spend fundraising, or preserving electoral competition. And the Court refused to even entertain the most obvious reason for spending limits -- creating a level playing field among all candidates.
So there you have it. The evidence that was good enough for 90 percent of the voters wasn't good enough for a couple of unelected judges. Sounds like another case of rampant judicial activism to me.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Time to Invest in a Lobbying Firm
One sure sign that powerful interests are pretty happy with our current crop of politicians is that they are spending way more money schmoozing with incumbents than they are trying to get a bunch of new people in office. You can bet that if we had a bunch of independent thinking elected officials who stood up to special interests, that those interests wouldn't waste their time lobbying them but would instead work to unseat them.
Today's Washington Post has an article talking about how lobbying firms are getting bought out by bigger and bigger companies because they have become so profitable. Harris Diamond, a CEO in the lobbying biz says its a "good growth arena." Kenneth Rietz, another CEO, says that "generally speaking, our government-related businesses are more profitable than our other U.S. businesses." Big lobby firms can make a 25% to 50% profit on their work -- tell that to your corner grocer or neighborhood auto mechanic who has to struggle to make a living doing honest work.
Maybe the rest of us should quit our day jobs and just invest in lobbying stock. It might not bring much moral satisfaction at the end of the day or contribute much to society, but that doesn't seem to worry the lobbyists.
One sure sign that powerful interests are pretty happy with our current crop of politicians is that they are spending way more money schmoozing with incumbents than they are trying to get a bunch of new people in office. You can bet that if we had a bunch of independent thinking elected officials who stood up to special interests, that those interests wouldn't waste their time lobbying them but would instead work to unseat them.
Today's Washington Post has an article talking about how lobbying firms are getting bought out by bigger and bigger companies because they have become so profitable. Harris Diamond, a CEO in the lobbying biz says its a "good growth arena." Kenneth Rietz, another CEO, says that "generally speaking, our government-related businesses are more profitable than our other U.S. businesses." Big lobby firms can make a 25% to 50% profit on their work -- tell that to your corner grocer or neighborhood auto mechanic who has to struggle to make a living doing honest work.
Maybe the rest of us should quit our day jobs and just invest in lobbying stock. It might not bring much moral satisfaction at the end of the day or contribute much to society, but that doesn't seem to worry the lobbyists.
Monday, April 26, 2004
Florida Politicians Fed Up with Democracy
Elected officials in Florida are frustrated by the people making laws themselves through the initiative process. So, they've taken it upon themselves to make it harder for people to govern themselves directly. The politicians are promoting a constitutional amendment that would make it more difficult for future constitutional amendments that are citizen initiated to pass. For citizens, the lawmakers think there should be a 60% threshold required for passage. Some might call that minority rule. Of course, they think it would be just fine if this amendment passes by 50% -- and, they're putting it on a primary ballot where independent voters won't weigh in. See details here in the New York Times.
Elected officials in Florida are frustrated by the people making laws themselves through the initiative process. So, they've taken it upon themselves to make it harder for people to govern themselves directly. The politicians are promoting a constitutional amendment that would make it more difficult for future constitutional amendments that are citizen initiated to pass. For citizens, the lawmakers think there should be a 60% threshold required for passage. Some might call that minority rule. Of course, they think it would be just fine if this amendment passes by 50% -- and, they're putting it on a primary ballot where independent voters won't weigh in. See details here in the New York Times.
