Friday, May 28, 2004
Out of State Money Floods South Dakota Special Election
Money from outside South Dakota accounts for over sixty percent of the campaign contributions to the candidates in the June 1st special election to fill former Congressman Bill Janklow’s seat. Between them, Stephanie Herseth and Larry Diedrich have collected nearly two million dollars from out-of-state individuals and political committees. (Check out our Fact Sheet on the race here.)
The money flowing into South Dakota from out of state is blatant interference in South Dakotans’ constitutional right to choose their elected representative. Most South Dakotans can’t really afford to give $100 to a political candidate, much less the $2000 that federal election laws allow. As long as out-of-staters can contribute big bucks, folks in South Dakota will have less say in who represents them than rich people from New York and Washington, D.C.
Money is often decisive in politics. In the 2002 congressional elections, the candidate who spent the most won over ninety percent of the time. The recent Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold bill, increased the limits on individual contributions per election from $1000 to $2000, placing a high premium on getting big donations. Based on a review of filings with the Federal Election Commission, Diedrich and Herseth each took in over one million dollars in contributions of $1,000 or more from individuals and political committees.
Neither candidate’s website states a position on campaign finance reform. While Herseth and Diedrich cannot be expected to forego contributions unilaterally, both candidates owe it to the people of South Dakota to explain where they stand on this important issue.
Big money drives our elections. But we can change that by electing responsible leaders to office who will commit to serious changes in campaign finance laws, rather than catering to the fat cats who now fund their campaigns.
Money from outside South Dakota accounts for over sixty percent of the campaign contributions to the candidates in the June 1st special election to fill former Congressman Bill Janklow’s seat. Between them, Stephanie Herseth and Larry Diedrich have collected nearly two million dollars from out-of-state individuals and political committees. (Check out our Fact Sheet on the race here.)
The money flowing into South Dakota from out of state is blatant interference in South Dakotans’ constitutional right to choose their elected representative. Most South Dakotans can’t really afford to give $100 to a political candidate, much less the $2000 that federal election laws allow. As long as out-of-staters can contribute big bucks, folks in South Dakota will have less say in who represents them than rich people from New York and Washington, D.C.
Money is often decisive in politics. In the 2002 congressional elections, the candidate who spent the most won over ninety percent of the time. The recent Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold bill, increased the limits on individual contributions per election from $1000 to $2000, placing a high premium on getting big donations. Based on a review of filings with the Federal Election Commission, Diedrich and Herseth each took in over one million dollars in contributions of $1,000 or more from individuals and political committees.
Neither candidate’s website states a position on campaign finance reform. While Herseth and Diedrich cannot be expected to forego contributions unilaterally, both candidates owe it to the people of South Dakota to explain where they stand on this important issue.
Big money drives our elections. But we can change that by electing responsible leaders to office who will commit to serious changes in campaign finance laws, rather than catering to the fat cats who now fund their campaigns.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Perspective From Florida
Two recent pieces from Florida shine a little light on the road campaign finance reform has traveled in the last thirty years.
Gary Fineout writes in today's Miami Herald about a new law signed by Governor Jeb Bush that requires disclosure of contributors to Committees of Continuous Existence, political groups set up by trade organizations, business groups, and the like. As one state lawmaker put it:
Compare the efforts in the Sunshine State of today with those of the pre-Buckley era in a great article by Martin Dyckman in The St. Petersburg Times. Dyckman writes about the steps Floridians took when Jack Eckerd (of the Eckerd Pharmacy chain) spent huge amounts of his vast personal fortune to run for governor.
The steps? Spending limits. And the effect? As Dyckman says:
Amen to that.
Two recent pieces from Florida shine a little light on the road campaign finance reform has traveled in the last thirty years.
Gary Fineout writes in today's Miami Herald about a new law signed by Governor Jeb Bush that requires disclosure of contributors to Committees of Continuous Existence, political groups set up by trade organizations, business groups, and the like. As one state lawmaker put it:
The public will be able to connect the dots between contributions and what's going on in the political process.
Compare the efforts in the Sunshine State of today with those of the pre-Buckley era in a great article by Martin Dyckman in The St. Petersburg Times. Dyckman writes about the steps Floridians took when Jack Eckerd (of the Eckerd Pharmacy chain) spent huge amounts of his vast personal fortune to run for governor.
The steps? Spending limits. And the effect? As Dyckman says:
It was no coincidence that some of the best people Florida ever elected began or advanced their careers on that leveled playing field.
Amen to that.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Op-Ed on the Hardening of Soft Money
TomPaine.com has published an op-ed that I wrote about the failures of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). You can read the full piece here. Here's a small sampling:
TomPaine.com has published an op-ed that I wrote about the failures of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). You can read the full piece here. Here's a small sampling:
BCRA may have banned unlimited party donations, but it set the new limits at amounts roughly double what donors were giving when facing no barriers at all. BCRA's hard-money figures may now serve more as a target toward which donors strive than a limit that constrains them in any meaningful way.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Mike Bloomberg Wants YOU Not To Run For Mayor
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is filthy stinkin' rich, even for New York City. How rich is he? Well, in 2001, he spent over $70 million of his own money to get himself elected mayor.
Now, you might be saying to yourself: is that even legal? Can he do that?
You better believe it. But it gets worse.
New York City is one of many places around the country that have partial public financing of candidates. In NYC's system, qualified candidates receive matching public funds of $4 for every dollar they receive in return for agreeing to certain spending limits and debate requirements. The match goes to five-to-one for a candidate whose opponent opts out of the system.
Bloomberg's opponent in 2001, Mark Green, spent around $16 million dollars, about $4.5 million of which he received from public funds according to the executive director of the New York City Campaign Finance Board in an interview in The Political Standard. And he still got blown out of the water spending-wise by Bloomberg's big bucks.
So now there is a proposal to increase the matching funds for candidates who are running against an opponent with never-ending pockets. Guess who's against it?
Mike Bloomberg.
First he bought an election. Then, last year, he spent another $2 million in trying to sell his own scheme to end the primary system in NYC elections. And now, as reported by Dan Janison in Newsday, he wants to short-circuit a reasonable solution to a problem for which he is the poster-child.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is filthy stinkin' rich, even for New York City. How rich is he? Well, in 2001, he spent over $70 million of his own money to get himself elected mayor.
Now, you might be saying to yourself: is that even legal? Can he do that?
You better believe it. But it gets worse.
New York City is one of many places around the country that have partial public financing of candidates. In NYC's system, qualified candidates receive matching public funds of $4 for every dollar they receive in return for agreeing to certain spending limits and debate requirements. The match goes to five-to-one for a candidate whose opponent opts out of the system.
Bloomberg's opponent in 2001, Mark Green, spent around $16 million dollars, about $4.5 million of which he received from public funds according to the executive director of the New York City Campaign Finance Board in an interview in The Political Standard. And he still got blown out of the water spending-wise by Bloomberg's big bucks.
So now there is a proposal to increase the matching funds for candidates who are running against an opponent with never-ending pockets. Guess who's against it?
Mike Bloomberg.
First he bought an election. Then, last year, he spent another $2 million in trying to sell his own scheme to end the primary system in NYC elections. And now, as reported by Dan Janison in Newsday, he wants to short-circuit a reasonable solution to a problem for which he is the poster-child.
Monday, May 24, 2004
Gaming the System
On Friday, Senator Kerry's campaign floated the idea that he might not 'officially' accept the nomination at the Democratic Convention this July - he would accept the nomination a month or so later, around the time of the Republican Convention.
The logic behind this idea goes something like this - Kerry and President Bush both stand to get about $75 million in public funds once they accept their party's nomination. To qualify for the public money, they have to agree to use only that money for the period from their nomination up to the election.
Here's the catch: the Democratic Convention is at the end of July. The Republican Convention is at the end of August. As is, Kerry has to make his $75 million 'stretch' for a month longer than Bush, giving Bush a decided advantage. But, if Kerry doesn't accept the nomination until later, he and Bush can have roughly the same amount of money to spend over the same amount of time. Brilliant!
What the heck is going on? This is the system we use to elect the President of the United States? Our elected officials have turned this into a contest of appointment books, not ideas. Everybody pull out your Blackberrys - we'll out-schedule 'em!
C'mon. Public funding is a great idea, but will work only if candidates have to opt in for both primary and general election.
The wacky system we have just goes to show you that the folks in Washington who are supposed to be working for the American people are napping on the job. They obviously think they can get away with designing a mediocre system for what is the most important process of democracy - choosing our leaders. And they'll keep on thinking they can get away with it until regular Americans let them know at the polls that we deserve better than this.
Let's just hope they can make time for us in their schedule.
On Friday, Senator Kerry's campaign floated the idea that he might not 'officially' accept the nomination at the Democratic Convention this July - he would accept the nomination a month or so later, around the time of the Republican Convention.
The logic behind this idea goes something like this - Kerry and President Bush both stand to get about $75 million in public funds once they accept their party's nomination. To qualify for the public money, they have to agree to use only that money for the period from their nomination up to the election.
Here's the catch: the Democratic Convention is at the end of July. The Republican Convention is at the end of August. As is, Kerry has to make his $75 million 'stretch' for a month longer than Bush, giving Bush a decided advantage. But, if Kerry doesn't accept the nomination until later, he and Bush can have roughly the same amount of money to spend over the same amount of time. Brilliant!
What the heck is going on? This is the system we use to elect the President of the United States? Our elected officials have turned this into a contest of appointment books, not ideas. Everybody pull out your Blackberrys - we'll out-schedule 'em!
C'mon. Public funding is a great idea, but will work only if candidates have to opt in for both primary and general election.
The wacky system we have just goes to show you that the folks in Washington who are supposed to be working for the American people are napping on the job. They obviously think they can get away with designing a mediocre system for what is the most important process of democracy - choosing our leaders. And they'll keep on thinking they can get away with it until regular Americans let them know at the polls that we deserve better than this.
Let's just hope they can make time for us in their schedule.
