Friday, July 16, 2004
The Hand that Feeds Congress
Congressional power broker Tom Delay is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for possible violations of campaign finance laws. Sort of under investigation anyway. As Susan Gamboa reports in the Chicago Tribune, four of the members of the Ethics Committee who are to judge whether Delay committed any violations have received contributions from the very committees Delay is under investigation for misusing.
One of Delay's aides expressed full confidence that the Ethics Committee would handle the situation in an appropriate manner. I'm sure.
Delay casts a long shadow over his party's caucus in large part because of his track record of steering millions of dollars in campaign contributions to other members. This financial assistance enables Delay to apply a great deal of pressure on members to vote for certain measures, regardless of the interests of their constituents at home.
If an elected representative of the people answers to another member before his own constituents, something is clearly wrong. Such a system smacks more of Tammany Hall than it does democracy.
Despite the noblest of intentions we might ascribe to these members, they still risk offending one of their principal political patrons by judging Delay. They face an inherent conflict of interest between their political livelihoods and their political responsibilities when they sit in judgment of him or his fundraising activities. The same power that gives Delay so much influence over his fellow members of Congress also requires that those four members that have received financial assistance from Delay's political action committees recuse themselves from any determination of impropriety on Delay's part.
After all, if these guys know anything, it's not to bite the hand that feeds them.
Congressional power broker Tom Delay is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for possible violations of campaign finance laws. Sort of under investigation anyway. As Susan Gamboa reports in the Chicago Tribune, four of the members of the Ethics Committee who are to judge whether Delay committed any violations have received contributions from the very committees Delay is under investigation for misusing.
One of Delay's aides expressed full confidence that the Ethics Committee would handle the situation in an appropriate manner. I'm sure.
Delay casts a long shadow over his party's caucus in large part because of his track record of steering millions of dollars in campaign contributions to other members. This financial assistance enables Delay to apply a great deal of pressure on members to vote for certain measures, regardless of the interests of their constituents at home.
If an elected representative of the people answers to another member before his own constituents, something is clearly wrong. Such a system smacks more of Tammany Hall than it does democracy.
Despite the noblest of intentions we might ascribe to these members, they still risk offending one of their principal political patrons by judging Delay. They face an inherent conflict of interest between their political livelihoods and their political responsibilities when they sit in judgment of him or his fundraising activities. The same power that gives Delay so much influence over his fellow members of Congress also requires that those four members that have received financial assistance from Delay's political action committees recuse themselves from any determination of impropriety on Delay's part.
After all, if these guys know anything, it's not to bite the hand that feeds them.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Senator Schumer Will Crush You!
If his efforts raising funds for his Senate campaign are any indication, New York Senator Charles Schumer is the kind of guy that mows his lawn with napalm. As Sharon Theimer reports in The Washington Post, Schumer has collected over $25 million for his re-election campaign. His opponent, Howard Mills, has raised slightly over $450,000.
Now, Senator . . . Chuck . . . c'mon. Do you really need to take all that money to win re-election? Do you not get plenty of media time already? Do you not have plenty of chances for your message to reach millions of New Yorkers at least once or twice a week? Is the U.S. Senator from the country's second most populous state suddenly a low-visibility job?
C'mon. You don't need it. It makes your vote to increase contribution limits from $1,000 to $2,000 for federal candidates like yourself look pretty greedy, if not borderline corrupt. Worse, by taking all that money, you facilitate the metamorphosis of our democracy from a vote-centric choice-driven pact amongst the people to a money-driven cash race amongst the wealthy to cherrypick the candidate that helps their personal agenda most.
As is, the candidates who might represent the interests of the Americans who can't afford to give the Chuck Schumers of this world $2,000 are fighting with both hands tied behind their backs.
$25 million. $450,000. Is that a level playing field for democracy?
If his efforts raising funds for his Senate campaign are any indication, New York Senator Charles Schumer is the kind of guy that mows his lawn with napalm. As Sharon Theimer reports in The Washington Post, Schumer has collected over $25 million for his re-election campaign. His opponent, Howard Mills, has raised slightly over $450,000.
Now, Senator . . . Chuck . . . c'mon. Do you really need to take all that money to win re-election? Do you not get plenty of media time already? Do you not have plenty of chances for your message to reach millions of New Yorkers at least once or twice a week? Is the U.S. Senator from the country's second most populous state suddenly a low-visibility job?
C'mon. You don't need it. It makes your vote to increase contribution limits from $1,000 to $2,000 for federal candidates like yourself look pretty greedy, if not borderline corrupt. Worse, by taking all that money, you facilitate the metamorphosis of our democracy from a vote-centric choice-driven pact amongst the people to a money-driven cash race amongst the wealthy to cherrypick the candidate that helps their personal agenda most.
As is, the candidates who might represent the interests of the Americans who can't afford to give the Chuck Schumers of this world $2,000 are fighting with both hands tied behind their backs.
$25 million. $450,000. Is that a level playing field for democracy?
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
The Company We Keep (or, Man, is This Trough Crowded!)
As the Courier Post reports here, Charles Kushner, a New Jersey real estate developer and bigtime political contributor, was charged by federal authorities today with hiring a prostitute to blackmail a close relative who was a potential witness in the federal probe against Kushner. Kushner paid $25,000 for the prostitute to seduce the man and videotape the tryst. He later had the tape sent to the man's wife shortly before a family party.
The latest charges came from an investigation by the feds into Kushner's powerful network of real estate, banking, and insurance businesses. Just last month, the Federal Election Commission imposed a $500,000 fine on Kushner for a series of violations of campaign finance laws.
So why is it that Kushner apparently believes himself to be beyond the law? Here are some possibilities:
1) New Jersey Governor James McGreevey:
-Kushner is McGreevey's biggest financial supporter. In two campaigns for governor, Kushner, his family and employees of his real estate companies gave McGreevey's various campaign funds roughly $1.5 million.
-Kushner donated $50,000 to an organization controlled by McGreevey to renovate the N.J. Governor's Mansion.
-Two former Kushner employees worked for McGreevey - one as his homeland security adviser, the other as his chief of staff.
-McGreevey named Kushner to the powerful and influential NY/NJ Port Authority, intending to make Kushner its head. (Kushner ended up resigning when the political winds blew sour.)
2) The Democratic Party:
-Kushner wrote out a $1 million check to the Democratic Party in late 2002, right before the soft-money ban took effect.
-Kushner helped raise big money for Senators Robert Torricelli, Hillary Clinton, Frank Lautenburg, and Jon Corzine, and for Bill Clinton, amongst others. President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, and Senator Joseph Lieberman all have made their way Kushner's office.
3) Spreading big bucks around:
-Kushner and his network of associates and business have given almost $6 million to candidates in New Jersey and around the country.
-Kushner contributed over $60,000 to Rudy Giuliani.
In essence, Kushner is New Jersey's own personal one-man Enron, a criminal juggernaut of big money and arrogance and greed stepping all over democracy in order to get the candidates and office-holders he wanted into office. When Kushner wanted a man in office, he paid the way. When he wanted a man's silence, he paid a prostitute to get it.
It's good that the federal authorities are bringing Kushner to justice. However, the fact that so many of our country's leading politicians, including our president and vice-president for cryin' out loud, made their way to this dirtbag's office in homage to the millions he gave them makes it very clear that we as Americans cannot trust our elected officials to carry out meaningful campaign reform.
As the Courier Post reports here, Charles Kushner, a New Jersey real estate developer and bigtime political contributor, was charged by federal authorities today with hiring a prostitute to blackmail a close relative who was a potential witness in the federal probe against Kushner. Kushner paid $25,000 for the prostitute to seduce the man and videotape the tryst. He later had the tape sent to the man's wife shortly before a family party.
The latest charges came from an investigation by the feds into Kushner's powerful network of real estate, banking, and insurance businesses. Just last month, the Federal Election Commission imposed a $500,000 fine on Kushner for a series of violations of campaign finance laws.
So why is it that Kushner apparently believes himself to be beyond the law? Here are some possibilities:
1) New Jersey Governor James McGreevey:
-Kushner is McGreevey's biggest financial supporter. In two campaigns for governor, Kushner, his family and employees of his real estate companies gave McGreevey's various campaign funds roughly $1.5 million.
-Kushner donated $50,000 to an organization controlled by McGreevey to renovate the N.J. Governor's Mansion.
-Two former Kushner employees worked for McGreevey - one as his homeland security adviser, the other as his chief of staff.
-McGreevey named Kushner to the powerful and influential NY/NJ Port Authority, intending to make Kushner its head. (Kushner ended up resigning when the political winds blew sour.)
2) The Democratic Party:
-Kushner wrote out a $1 million check to the Democratic Party in late 2002, right before the soft-money ban took effect.
-Kushner helped raise big money for Senators Robert Torricelli, Hillary Clinton, Frank Lautenburg, and Jon Corzine, and for Bill Clinton, amongst others. President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, and Senator Joseph Lieberman all have made their way Kushner's office.
3) Spreading big bucks around:
-Kushner and his network of associates and business have given almost $6 million to candidates in New Jersey and around the country.
-Kushner contributed over $60,000 to Rudy Giuliani.
In essence, Kushner is New Jersey's own personal one-man Enron, a criminal juggernaut of big money and arrogance and greed stepping all over democracy in order to get the candidates and office-holders he wanted into office. When Kushner wanted a man in office, he paid the way. When he wanted a man's silence, he paid a prostitute to get it.
It's good that the federal authorities are bringing Kushner to justice. However, the fact that so many of our country's leading politicians, including our president and vice-president for cryin' out loud, made their way to this dirtbag's office in homage to the millions he gave them makes it very clear that we as Americans cannot trust our elected officials to carry out meaningful campaign reform.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong
As Jonathan Friedman reports in The Malibu Times, this Monday, the Malibu City Council was to vote on a proposal to increase contribution limits for candidates for City Council from $100 to $500.
Malibu's Campaign Watch Commission made the proposal in large part in response to a recent campaign in which one candidate, property rights advocate Wade Major, accused an outside group of being a surrogate for his opponents. Major argued that the outside group should therefore be subject to the $100 limits. Major unsuccessfully sought a temporary restraining order against the group, which spent significant sums of money to support his opponents. Major lost the election.
The Commission believes that the problem is that independent organizations are not subject to contribution limits, therefore the perception of an unlevel playing field is created. And the Commission's solution? Increase the amount of money in City Council campaigns by 500%.
This move will not solve the problem -- independent groups would still not be subject to the limits. Elections will begin to turn on who can raise the most money, not who has the best ideas or leadership. Good candidates who might have run for office will be priced out of the market, as candidates whose opinions agree with folks wealthy enough to pony up $500 will gain a decided advantage over those candidates who represent the issues or viewpoints of those who can't afford such a big amount.
A better way to level the playing field is to set contribution limits on all groups who engage in electioneering. The City Council could also require outside groups to disclose their contributors, and restrict their electioneering for or against a candidate in the period before elections. This would allow outside groups to voice their opinions, while at the same time preventing those groups from dominating the political discourse with their unlimited funds.
More importantly, implementing these alternatives instead of raising contribution limits means that normal folks have the same ability to influence the selection and election of candidates as folks with $500 to spare for a city council race.
As Jonathan Friedman reports in The Malibu Times, this Monday, the Malibu City Council was to vote on a proposal to increase contribution limits for candidates for City Council from $100 to $500.
Malibu's Campaign Watch Commission made the proposal in large part in response to a recent campaign in which one candidate, property rights advocate Wade Major, accused an outside group of being a surrogate for his opponents. Major argued that the outside group should therefore be subject to the $100 limits. Major unsuccessfully sought a temporary restraining order against the group, which spent significant sums of money to support his opponents. Major lost the election.
The Commission believes that the problem is that independent organizations are not subject to contribution limits, therefore the perception of an unlevel playing field is created. And the Commission's solution? Increase the amount of money in City Council campaigns by 500%.
This move will not solve the problem -- independent groups would still not be subject to the limits. Elections will begin to turn on who can raise the most money, not who has the best ideas or leadership. Good candidates who might have run for office will be priced out of the market, as candidates whose opinions agree with folks wealthy enough to pony up $500 will gain a decided advantage over those candidates who represent the issues or viewpoints of those who can't afford such a big amount.
A better way to level the playing field is to set contribution limits on all groups who engage in electioneering. The City Council could also require outside groups to disclose their contributors, and restrict their electioneering for or against a candidate in the period before elections. This would allow outside groups to voice their opinions, while at the same time preventing those groups from dominating the political discourse with their unlimited funds.
More importantly, implementing these alternatives instead of raising contribution limits means that normal folks have the same ability to influence the selection and election of candidates as folks with $500 to spare for a city council race.
Monday, July 12, 2004
Connecticut Congressman Works the System
Two-term incumbent congressman Rob Simmons of Connecticut's 2nd District is in dire trouble. He has raised a paltry $1.1 million dollars so far for his re-election campaign - only five times the total amount raised by his two potential challengers in the November general election combined.
Won't somebody please help that poor man?!
Never fear. Our nation's campaign finance law has swooped in to save the day, offering the Congressman shelter from the dark forces of democracy in its mighty loopholes, succor in his time of need- . . . -ing more money.
Just in case his 5:1 advantage in fundraising doesn't feel like quite enough, as reported by Ray Hackett of the Norwich Bulletin, Congressman Simmons has also signed on to a "joint candidates' committee" that has the potential to allow big donors that have maxed out their contributions to give more.
Congressman Simmons (or hey! maybe even his constituents) would be better served talking about issues with the public than by engaging in obscure democracy-draining campaign-finance tactics.
Two-term incumbent congressman Rob Simmons of Connecticut's 2nd District is in dire trouble. He has raised a paltry $1.1 million dollars so far for his re-election campaign - only five times the total amount raised by his two potential challengers in the November general election combined.
Won't somebody please help that poor man?!
Never fear. Our nation's campaign finance law has swooped in to save the day, offering the Congressman shelter from the dark forces of democracy in its mighty loopholes, succor in his time of need- . . . -ing more money.
Just in case his 5:1 advantage in fundraising doesn't feel like quite enough, as reported by Ray Hackett of the Norwich Bulletin, Congressman Simmons has also signed on to a "joint candidates' committee" that has the potential to allow big donors that have maxed out their contributions to give more.
Congressman Simmons (or hey! maybe even his constituents) would be better served talking about issues with the public than by engaging in obscure democracy-draining campaign-finance tactics.
