Friday, May 07, 2004
Big Money Overpowering New Surge in Small Donors
There's a lot of talk these days about how both President Bush and John Kerry are raising record amounts of money from small donors. See for example this recent article by the Washington Post. The article profiles a formerly apolitical veteran who has given $100 to the President and an airline operations manager who not only has made a small contribution to John Kerry but has organized a $50-a-person fundraiser that she hopes will bring in up to $10,000. Some small donors are giving straight to the candidates, but others are giving to political parties, or outside groups like MoveOn.org.
This surge in small donors, spurred by strong feelings about our current president and the fact that the race is so close, is a good thing. It dispels the myth of reform opponents that it would simply be impossible for candidates to run their campaigns solely with the support of ordinary citizens. For democracy to flourish, citizens need to do more than vote. Getting involved through small campaign contributions, writing letters to the editor, wearing political buttons, and the like is part of the civic process.
But unfortunately, this historic rise in small donor participation has been more than offset by increased giving by the fat cats. According to analysis by the United States Public Interest Research Group, in the first quarter of this year, presidential contestants raised almost half of their funds in contributions at or above $1000, up from 31% in the 2000 race. Nearly a third (29%) of candidates' individual contributions came in the maximum amount of $2,000. So, the bankers and oil company execs have even more say than the rest of us than they did before. This rise in large donor fundraising is no doubt also spurred by the closeness of the election, but large donors can now play an even bigger role in presidential politics due to the doubling in contribution limits in the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
So, let's embrace the good news. But, remember that while its good to see small money flowing into politics, we've still gotta get the big money out.
UPDATE: Here's a good editorial in the Albany Times Union that makes the same point:
There's a lot of talk these days about how both President Bush and John Kerry are raising record amounts of money from small donors. See for example this recent article by the Washington Post. The article profiles a formerly apolitical veteran who has given $100 to the President and an airline operations manager who not only has made a small contribution to John Kerry but has organized a $50-a-person fundraiser that she hopes will bring in up to $10,000. Some small donors are giving straight to the candidates, but others are giving to political parties, or outside groups like MoveOn.org.
This surge in small donors, spurred by strong feelings about our current president and the fact that the race is so close, is a good thing. It dispels the myth of reform opponents that it would simply be impossible for candidates to run their campaigns solely with the support of ordinary citizens. For democracy to flourish, citizens need to do more than vote. Getting involved through small campaign contributions, writing letters to the editor, wearing political buttons, and the like is part of the civic process.
But unfortunately, this historic rise in small donor participation has been more than offset by increased giving by the fat cats. According to analysis by the United States Public Interest Research Group, in the first quarter of this year, presidential contestants raised almost half of their funds in contributions at or above $1000, up from 31% in the 2000 race. Nearly a third (29%) of candidates' individual contributions came in the maximum amount of $2,000. So, the bankers and oil company execs have even more say than the rest of us than they did before. This rise in large donor fundraising is no doubt also spurred by the closeness of the election, but large donors can now play an even bigger role in presidential politics due to the doubling in contribution limits in the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
So, let's embrace the good news. But, remember that while its good to see small money flowing into politics, we've still gotta get the big money out.
UPDATE: Here's a good editorial in the Albany Times Union that makes the same point:
Here's a reality check for all those who thought the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law would wring out the influence of money on elections: You couldn't be more wrong. But you're also in good company. All of the experts were wrong as well.
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Missing the Boat Down on the Bayou (or Making More Room on the Flag Anyway)
A feeble campaign finance reform bill got stalled in the Lousiana Senate yesterday. (You can do a bill search here for House Bill 1015 for text of the bill.) The bill essentially would prohibit state legislators and other statewide officials from receiving campaign contributions while in legislative session, extending that period for an additional thirty days for the governor. Proponents of the bill say it is designed to ensure that the citizens of Louisiana have confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the legislative process.
This is a typical brand of campaign finance reform which serves more as smokescreen than solution. Legislators and policymakers throw around big words like democracy and impartiality in touting tepid reforms, all the while avoiding any real steps to ensure that folks with lots of money don't have a greater say in government than folks with not so much money. What the Louisiana bill does is pretty much the same as telling legislators they can't take money on weekends, and asking the citizens of Louisiana to believe that this will prevent any weekday contributions from having undue influence on the political process.
Give me a break. The way to keep the influence of big money out of our political system is to keep big money out of our political system, regardless of when it's given. And the best way to do that is to ensure the amount of money anybody can give to politicians is an amount that everybody can give. The Louisiana flag lists the state motto as "Union, Justice, and Confidence." As long as the Louisiana legislature tries to pass off bogus reforms as giving the average citizen his or her rightful voice in government, the folks in the Pelican state will have to be content with "Union."
A feeble campaign finance reform bill got stalled in the Lousiana Senate yesterday. (You can do a bill search here for House Bill 1015 for text of the bill.) The bill essentially would prohibit state legislators and other statewide officials from receiving campaign contributions while in legislative session, extending that period for an additional thirty days for the governor. Proponents of the bill say it is designed to ensure that the citizens of Louisiana have confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the legislative process.
This is a typical brand of campaign finance reform which serves more as smokescreen than solution. Legislators and policymakers throw around big words like democracy and impartiality in touting tepid reforms, all the while avoiding any real steps to ensure that folks with lots of money don't have a greater say in government than folks with not so much money. What the Louisiana bill does is pretty much the same as telling legislators they can't take money on weekends, and asking the citizens of Louisiana to believe that this will prevent any weekday contributions from having undue influence on the political process.
Give me a break. The way to keep the influence of big money out of our political system is to keep big money out of our political system, regardless of when it's given. And the best way to do that is to ensure the amount of money anybody can give to politicians is an amount that everybody can give. The Louisiana flag lists the state motto as "Union, Justice, and Confidence." As long as the Louisiana legislature tries to pass off bogus reforms as giving the average citizen his or her rightful voice in government, the folks in the Pelican state will have to be content with "Union."
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Mischief in Mississippi
The mighty river isn't the only thing flowing into the Magnolia State from parts north. Folks in Mississippi can expect a river of cash to keep flowing into their state from undisclosed out-of-state interests thanks to a vote in the Mississippi Senate which effectively killed a bill requiring better disclosure of contributions and loans made to state candidates.
One key provision of the bill would have required political action committees (PACs) to disclose information about contributions received from other PACs. So let's say a PAC called Mississippians for Mississippi Hooray! is throwing money around on advertising for a certain candidate or issue. Under current Mississippi law, a voter who wants to know where MMH is getting their money cannot do so. This allows these PACs to get money from anyone and anywhere without being accountable to the voters of Mississippi.
The new law would have changed this. But, as reported here by Geoff Pender in The Sun Herald, the State Senate engaged in the ol' procedural two-step, and sent the bill back to Committee to die.
State Senator Tommy Robertson explained his opposition as resulting from his desire not to cut corporate America out of politics. Well, Senator, corporate America has plenty of opportunity to play a role in American politics through the votes and contributions of its individual shareholders. When we give corporations the power to give money to political candidates on top of what its shareholders already give, we are granting those shareholders the right to give more than the rest of us, to have a greater say in who gets elected than the rest of us, to determine more than the rest of us under which laws we will live as a society.
The law that got killed in the Mississippi Senate today would have been a tiny step towards providing the citizens of Mississippi with more information about whose money is being used to get their representatives elected. That even it failed, shows how far we have fallen from our democratic ideals, and how far we must go to restore our political system to that simple idea of one person, one vote.
UPDATE: May 11, 2004
As reported here in The Sun Herald, the Mississippi Legislature passed a weakened version of the campaign finance reform bill discussed above. Still no disclosure requirements on PAC-to-PAC contributions though, which means Mississippians still won't know whether the campaign ads they see are paid for by out-of-state concerns or by local folks with local concerns.
The mighty river isn't the only thing flowing into the Magnolia State from parts north. Folks in Mississippi can expect a river of cash to keep flowing into their state from undisclosed out-of-state interests thanks to a vote in the Mississippi Senate which effectively killed a bill requiring better disclosure of contributions and loans made to state candidates.
One key provision of the bill would have required political action committees (PACs) to disclose information about contributions received from other PACs. So let's say a PAC called Mississippians for Mississippi Hooray! is throwing money around on advertising for a certain candidate or issue. Under current Mississippi law, a voter who wants to know where MMH is getting their money cannot do so. This allows these PACs to get money from anyone and anywhere without being accountable to the voters of Mississippi.
The new law would have changed this. But, as reported here by Geoff Pender in The Sun Herald, the State Senate engaged in the ol' procedural two-step, and sent the bill back to Committee to die.
State Senator Tommy Robertson explained his opposition as resulting from his desire not to cut corporate America out of politics. Well, Senator, corporate America has plenty of opportunity to play a role in American politics through the votes and contributions of its individual shareholders. When we give corporations the power to give money to political candidates on top of what its shareholders already give, we are granting those shareholders the right to give more than the rest of us, to have a greater say in who gets elected than the rest of us, to determine more than the rest of us under which laws we will live as a society.
The law that got killed in the Mississippi Senate today would have been a tiny step towards providing the citizens of Mississippi with more information about whose money is being used to get their representatives elected. That even it failed, shows how far we have fallen from our democratic ideals, and how far we must go to restore our political system to that simple idea of one person, one vote.
UPDATE: May 11, 2004
As reported here in The Sun Herald, the Mississippi Legislature passed a weakened version of the campaign finance reform bill discussed above. Still no disclosure requirements on PAC-to-PAC contributions though, which means Mississippians still won't know whether the campaign ads they see are paid for by out-of-state concerns or by local folks with local concerns.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Utah's High Rollers
The clinking sound of free-falling coins you might hear from the western slope of the Rockies is not coming from gambler-friendly Nevada – it’s coming from neighboring Utah, where the candidates for the Republican gubernatorial nomination are spending big bucks for their shot at the state's highest political office. And, as reported here, in the Deseret Morning News, it's working. According to the latest polls, multi-millionaires Jon Huntsman Jr. and Fred Lampropoulos are running first and second respectively. These two men also happen to be the two largest spenders in the race so far. Huntsman has spent almost $750,000; Lampropoulos over $2,200,000 (not including the $350,000 he spent on radio time in the last year talking about his beliefs. See here for Derek's January post on these radio spots.)
Coincidence? Just ask Lampropoulos campaign spokesman Dave Hansen, who had this to say to The Salt Lake Tribune here:
Well said, Mr. Hansen. Or put another way, the more money a candidate spends, the better that candidate's chances for election. And for these guys, no problem. Huntsman, eldest heir to a $2.5 billion petrochemical fortune, can simply turn to his family for a little financial help. (To the tune of a measly $145,000 so far.) And Lampropoulos? Shoot. He doesn't even need to bother family, much less actual voters. 95% of his campaign funds (nearly $2,000,000) have come from . . . himself.
So, to recap: money drastically improves a candidate's chances for election, and rich people can spend as much as they want to get themselves elected.
What does this all mean? Let's ask current Governor, Republican Olene Walker, what she thinks:
The clinking sound of free-falling coins you might hear from the western slope of the Rockies is not coming from gambler-friendly Nevada – it’s coming from neighboring Utah, where the candidates for the Republican gubernatorial nomination are spending big bucks for their shot at the state's highest political office. And, as reported here, in the Deseret Morning News, it's working. According to the latest polls, multi-millionaires Jon Huntsman Jr. and Fred Lampropoulos are running first and second respectively. These two men also happen to be the two largest spenders in the race so far. Huntsman has spent almost $750,000; Lampropoulos over $2,200,000 (not including the $350,000 he spent on radio time in the last year talking about his beliefs. See here for Derek's January post on these radio spots.)
Coincidence? Just ask Lampropoulos campaign spokesman Dave Hansen, who had this to say to The Salt Lake Tribune here:
"If we had spent less, we'd be right there battling for sixth place with Hellewell and Benson."
Well said, Mr. Hansen. Or put another way, the more money a candidate spends, the better that candidate's chances for election. And for these guys, no problem. Huntsman, eldest heir to a $2.5 billion petrochemical fortune, can simply turn to his family for a little financial help. (To the tune of a measly $145,000 so far.) And Lampropoulos? Shoot. He doesn't even need to bother family, much less actual voters. 95% of his campaign funds (nearly $2,000,000) have come from . . . himself.
So, to recap: money drastically improves a candidate's chances for election, and rich people can spend as much as they want to get themselves elected.
What does this all mean? Let's ask current Governor, Republican Olene Walker, what she thinks:
"We're setting a new standard for Utah politics that I hope doesn't exclude the average person from running."Indeed. Here at TheRestofUs.org, we share the Governor's concerns. It seems like the average American has a better chance of beating Vegas than getting a fair race against a rich candidate who can spend unlimited millions of their own money. Maybe we should all just move to Nevada and cash this democracy in, because unless we get serious about reforming a campaign finance system which drastically favors the rich over the rest of us, I don't like our chances.
Monday, May 03, 2004
Senator Corzine’s New Friends
Senator John Corzine knows the value of a dollar. But, then again, he should. In 2000, he spent sixty-three million of them to get himself elected to the U.S. Senate from New Jersey, all coming from the personal fortune he amassed while at Goldman Sachs, the large New York-based investment bank. So it's not much of a surprise to TheRestofUs.org that Corzine was picked last year to head the fundraising efforts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) - - who better to talk to rich folks about giving money than a rich guy?
Don’t worry. It's unlikely Senator Corzine will be heading to your neighborhood with his hand held out anytime soon. Corzine prefers a better-heeled environment than most of us can afford in which to do his asking, like Buckhead, Atlanta’s swankest neighborhood. As The New York Times reported here, Corzine met with a wealthy Republican real estate developer and his pals at a cocktail party amidst the waterfalls and pristine gardens of a seven-acre Buckhead estate to discuss, you know, money. As the Senator informed his listeners: “business and Democrats don't need to be enemies.”
True enough. There's nothing wrong with business interests having a fair voice in Congress. It's tough not to get the sense that the Senator is referring almost exclusively to big business though, especially when you know that he left the soiree with $40,000 in his pocket for the DSCC. I don't know too many small business owners who can afford to part with that kind of money, even if the party conversation is particularly sparkling.
What about Senator Corzine's itinerary in the future? Well, you need not rearrange your schedule to accommodate the Senator or his colleagues as long as campaign finance laws allow rich folks to give $25,000 a year to national political party committees like the DSCC. Until we lower the limits on political contributions to a level nearly all Americans can afford, the rest of us will be on the sidelines watching rich folks and politicians play the game that used to be our democracy.
Senator John Corzine knows the value of a dollar. But, then again, he should. In 2000, he spent sixty-three million of them to get himself elected to the U.S. Senate from New Jersey, all coming from the personal fortune he amassed while at Goldman Sachs, the large New York-based investment bank. So it's not much of a surprise to TheRestofUs.org that Corzine was picked last year to head the fundraising efforts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) - - who better to talk to rich folks about giving money than a rich guy?
Don’t worry. It's unlikely Senator Corzine will be heading to your neighborhood with his hand held out anytime soon. Corzine prefers a better-heeled environment than most of us can afford in which to do his asking, like Buckhead, Atlanta’s swankest neighborhood. As The New York Times reported here, Corzine met with a wealthy Republican real estate developer and his pals at a cocktail party amidst the waterfalls and pristine gardens of a seven-acre Buckhead estate to discuss, you know, money. As the Senator informed his listeners: “business and Democrats don't need to be enemies.”
True enough. There's nothing wrong with business interests having a fair voice in Congress. It's tough not to get the sense that the Senator is referring almost exclusively to big business though, especially when you know that he left the soiree with $40,000 in his pocket for the DSCC. I don't know too many small business owners who can afford to part with that kind of money, even if the party conversation is particularly sparkling.
What about Senator Corzine's itinerary in the future? Well, you need not rearrange your schedule to accommodate the Senator or his colleagues as long as campaign finance laws allow rich folks to give $25,000 a year to national political party committees like the DSCC. Until we lower the limits on political contributions to a level nearly all Americans can afford, the rest of us will be on the sidelines watching rich folks and politicians play the game that used to be our democracy.
Ned Joins The Rest of Us
So far, I have been the sole blogger for our Daily Posts, but today I am pleased to welcome Ned Wigglesworth as another contributor. Ned Wigglesworth began working for TheRestofUs.org in April 2004 after a brief career doing membership outreach in Chicago for a non-profit children’s organization. Prior to that, he had been a bartender in Manhattan, Kansas, a lawyer in Chicago, an entirely unsuccessful creative writer (his words, not mine). From these experiences and his time spent growing up on a sheep farm in Kansas, Ned hopes to bring some common-sense perspective to the problem of big money in politics and some practical solutions to restore the average American’s faith and power and voice in our political system. TheRestofUs.org is the place to do just that.
So far, I have been the sole blogger for our Daily Posts, but today I am pleased to welcome Ned Wigglesworth as another contributor. Ned Wigglesworth began working for TheRestofUs.org in April 2004 after a brief career doing membership outreach in Chicago for a non-profit children’s organization. Prior to that, he had been a bartender in Manhattan, Kansas, a lawyer in Chicago, an entirely unsuccessful creative writer (his words, not mine). From these experiences and his time spent growing up on a sheep farm in Kansas, Ned hopes to bring some common-sense perspective to the problem of big money in politics and some practical solutions to restore the average American’s faith and power and voice in our political system. TheRestofUs.org is the place to do just that.
