Friday, August 13, 2004
Democracy Lives In Arizona
As reported in the Arizona Republic, a developer-funded challenge to Arizona's Clean Elections system will not be on the ballot this November. On Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling that Proposition 106 violated Arizona's single-subject rule for legislation, and was therefore unconstitutional.
Since Arizona's voters approved the system of publicly financed elections four years ago, nearly half of Arizona candidates have opted to use the clean money, including Governor Janet Napolitano. Voter turnout has increased by 23%. The number of candidates running has increased by 24% in the primary, 13% in the general election. The number of uncontested races has decreased. In other words, more people are taking part in the political process, an excellent thing for any democracy.
As to be expected, the only people that have a problem with Arizona's record of success and the Arizona Supreme Court's decision are lobbyists and wealthy interests, who suddenly have to face legislators as citizens, not as financiers. Lobbyist Kevin DeMenna, who raises money for several legislators, calls the decision a "travesty":
While anti-democratic opponents of clean elections will undoubtedly try again in the future to assert the rights of the wealthy over the rights of the many, Thursday's decision stands as a victory for the vast majority of Arizonans. As a model for the rest of America, where a similar majority is locked out of having an equal say in our political system, it stands as a victory as well.
As reported in the Arizona Republic, a developer-funded challenge to Arizona's Clean Elections system will not be on the ballot this November. On Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling that Proposition 106 violated Arizona's single-subject rule for legislation, and was therefore unconstitutional.
Since Arizona's voters approved the system of publicly financed elections four years ago, nearly half of Arizona candidates have opted to use the clean money, including Governor Janet Napolitano. Voter turnout has increased by 23%. The number of candidates running has increased by 24% in the primary, 13% in the general election. The number of uncontested races has decreased. In other words, more people are taking part in the political process, an excellent thing for any democracy.
As to be expected, the only people that have a problem with Arizona's record of success and the Arizona Supreme Court's decision are lobbyists and wealthy interests, who suddenly have to face legislators as citizens, not as financiers. Lobbyist Kevin DeMenna, who raises money for several legislators, calls the decision a "travesty":
"If a candidate is not able to raise funds from private citizens, then it speaks volumes about the viability of that candidate's message to begin with," DeMenna said.Mr. DeMenna's bread-n-butter aside, Clean Elections candidates for governor in Arizona have to collect $5 from 4,000 private citizens. It is also hard to argue that clean candidates don't have viable messages when you consider that the people of Arizona elected clean elections candidates into 7 of 9 statewide offices, including Janet Napolitano as governor, and into 36% of the legislature's seats.
While anti-democratic opponents of clean elections will undoubtedly try again in the future to assert the rights of the wealthy over the rights of the many, Thursday's decision stands as a victory for the vast majority of Arizonans. As a model for the rest of America, where a similar majority is locked out of having an equal say in our political system, it stands as a victory as well.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Jim Bunning's Record-Setting Performance
As Michael Collins of the Kentucky Post reports, this week Senator Jim Bunning's campaign fund passed the $6 million mark, a record for contributions for Senate campaigns in Kentucky. His advisers expect to raise an additional million before the election. His opponent has raised $1.3 million, $700,000 in the form of a personal loan to himself.
Nearly half of Bunning's contributions (48%) came from out-of-state contributors, while his opponent took in only 17% of his contributions from out-of-staters. One of Bunning's advisers says that it's hardly surprising that Bunning, a Republican, aggressively pursues contributions from out of state because there are more Democrats in Kentucky than Republicans. Maybe the money Bunning is bringing in from out of state will help show the citizens of Kentucky the error of their ways.
With individual contribution limits doubled from $1,000 to $2,000 under the recent McCain-Feingold Act, other states are likely to see record-setting fundraising as well.
As Michael Collins of the Kentucky Post reports, this week Senator Jim Bunning's campaign fund passed the $6 million mark, a record for contributions for Senate campaigns in Kentucky. His advisers expect to raise an additional million before the election. His opponent has raised $1.3 million, $700,000 in the form of a personal loan to himself.
Nearly half of Bunning's contributions (48%) came from out-of-state contributors, while his opponent took in only 17% of his contributions from out-of-staters. One of Bunning's advisers says that it's hardly surprising that Bunning, a Republican, aggressively pursues contributions from out of state because there are more Democrats in Kentucky than Republicans. Maybe the money Bunning is bringing in from out of state will help show the citizens of Kentucky the error of their ways.
With individual contribution limits doubled from $1,000 to $2,000 under the recent McCain-Feingold Act, other states are likely to see record-setting fundraising as well.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
A Good Effort - Sort of
Defenders of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), aka the McCain-Feingold Act, are taking to the courts and airwaves to defend against a lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL) testing the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Act. WRTL wants to use corporate money to run so-called issue ads in the weeks running up to the election . . . issue ads which just happen to mention candidates, of course.
McCain-Feingold disallows corporate money for ads that mention candidates in the period just prior to elections ("electioneering ads"), a prohibition upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC. In essence then, WRTL's case is a sham, likely filed more for the free publicity (and it's getting tons) than as a sincere constitutional challenge. Whether you agree with the Supreme Court's decision, the point in contention has already been decided . . . only a year ago.
Before you go worryin' about WRTL's First Amendment rights being trampled on, the group can still run ads mentioning candidates in the weeks before an election - they just have to be paid for with donations from individuals, subject to the $5000 limit. Or WRTL can use its corporate money to run electioneering ads in newspapers or direct mailings or online. Anyone out there read a newspaper, live at an address, or have an e-mail address? Right. WRTL has plenty of opportunity to exercise its First Amendment rights. The fear-mongers' portrayal of WRTL as the helpless maiden bound and gagged on the railroad tracks before the evil train of McCain-Feingold just doesn't fly.
All that being said, BCRA still was a mistake in some ways. It raised the amount an individual can give a candidate from $1,000 to $2,000, when the great majority of Americans can't afford to give even a quarter of the old limit. And that's two grand for the primary and two grand for the general, meaning a wealthy couple can give eight grand to a candidate for a given election. When's the last time you had eight thousand bucks to give a politician? Individuals can also contribute $5,000 to a PAC, meaning WRTL can run $1,000,000 worth of ads explicitly saying VOTE AGAINST FEINGOLD with donations from a mere 200 people. As you can imagine, a million bucks can buy quite a bit of airtime.
All these limits are sky-high for average Americans. These limits still allow the few to dominate the selection and election of candidates - the core of any democracy - as well as the airwaves which nearly all of us use to stay informed about our world. When the WRTL case gets dismissed, there will still be a lot of work to be done before the American people reclaim our democracy from the hands of wealthy interests.
Defenders of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), aka the McCain-Feingold Act, are taking to the courts and airwaves to defend against a lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL) testing the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Act. WRTL wants to use corporate money to run so-called issue ads in the weeks running up to the election . . . issue ads which just happen to mention candidates, of course.
McCain-Feingold disallows corporate money for ads that mention candidates in the period just prior to elections ("electioneering ads"), a prohibition upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC. In essence then, WRTL's case is a sham, likely filed more for the free publicity (and it's getting tons) than as a sincere constitutional challenge. Whether you agree with the Supreme Court's decision, the point in contention has already been decided . . . only a year ago.
Before you go worryin' about WRTL's First Amendment rights being trampled on, the group can still run ads mentioning candidates in the weeks before an election - they just have to be paid for with donations from individuals, subject to the $5000 limit. Or WRTL can use its corporate money to run electioneering ads in newspapers or direct mailings or online. Anyone out there read a newspaper, live at an address, or have an e-mail address? Right. WRTL has plenty of opportunity to exercise its First Amendment rights. The fear-mongers' portrayal of WRTL as the helpless maiden bound and gagged on the railroad tracks before the evil train of McCain-Feingold just doesn't fly.
All that being said, BCRA still was a mistake in some ways. It raised the amount an individual can give a candidate from $1,000 to $2,000, when the great majority of Americans can't afford to give even a quarter of the old limit. And that's two grand for the primary and two grand for the general, meaning a wealthy couple can give eight grand to a candidate for a given election. When's the last time you had eight thousand bucks to give a politician? Individuals can also contribute $5,000 to a PAC, meaning WRTL can run $1,000,000 worth of ads explicitly saying VOTE AGAINST FEINGOLD with donations from a mere 200 people. As you can imagine, a million bucks can buy quite a bit of airtime.
All these limits are sky-high for average Americans. These limits still allow the few to dominate the selection and election of candidates - the core of any democracy - as well as the airwaves which nearly all of us use to stay informed about our world. When the WRTL case gets dismissed, there will still be a lot of work to be done before the American people reclaim our democracy from the hands of wealthy interests.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Quid Pro Quo Analysis Obscures the Big Picture
Virginia is one of fourteen states that have no limits on individual contributions to political candidates, and one of four (along with Illinois, New Mexico, and Oregon) that have absolutely no restrictions on any contributions from individuals or organizations to political candidates. Not surprisingly, this indulgent atmosphere has given wealthy folks a chance to spend their way not just into the hearts and minds of Virginia's politicians, but into the living rooms and kitchens of households across Virginia.
As The Virginia-Pilot reports, big donors have given six-figure donations to politicians in both parties, including $325,000 from a Tennessee pharmaceutical millionaire to Jerry Kilgore, a candidate for governor in 2006.
Whether white-tower wonk or regular Joe, it's easy to get caught up thinking that these rich folks' big bucks are going to buy them access or favorable legislation or a choice contract once their candidate gets into office. Corruption like that certainly exists, as it has for centuries.
However, focusing on this aspect of the problem of money in politics obscures a deeper rooted problem in our elections - whether it's a few super-huge contributions from the billionaire's club, or a hundred plain ol' huge contributions from a bunch of millionaires, when we allow candidates to build up huge campaign warchests without earning the support of the people first, we corrupt the democratic process. Not only do big bucks buy these pols access and legitimacy in the media without having to interact with the public at large, their piles of money scare off many potential candidates who might be (much) better at the job.
The Pilot piece calls for contribution limits to fix the problem as it seems to see it - the buying of access by rich folks. Contribution limits are probably part of the solution, but as the recent McCain-Feingold Act shows, when you misdefine the problem, you run the risk of making things worse. Reform efforts should not focus just on what happens once a politician gets into office, but also the process that got him or her there.
Virginia is one of fourteen states that have no limits on individual contributions to political candidates, and one of four (along with Illinois, New Mexico, and Oregon) that have absolutely no restrictions on any contributions from individuals or organizations to political candidates. Not surprisingly, this indulgent atmosphere has given wealthy folks a chance to spend their way not just into the hearts and minds of Virginia's politicians, but into the living rooms and kitchens of households across Virginia.
As The Virginia-Pilot reports, big donors have given six-figure donations to politicians in both parties, including $325,000 from a Tennessee pharmaceutical millionaire to Jerry Kilgore, a candidate for governor in 2006.
Whether white-tower wonk or regular Joe, it's easy to get caught up thinking that these rich folks' big bucks are going to buy them access or favorable legislation or a choice contract once their candidate gets into office. Corruption like that certainly exists, as it has for centuries.
However, focusing on this aspect of the problem of money in politics obscures a deeper rooted problem in our elections - whether it's a few super-huge contributions from the billionaire's club, or a hundred plain ol' huge contributions from a bunch of millionaires, when we allow candidates to build up huge campaign warchests without earning the support of the people first, we corrupt the democratic process. Not only do big bucks buy these pols access and legitimacy in the media without having to interact with the public at large, their piles of money scare off many potential candidates who might be (much) better at the job.
The Pilot piece calls for contribution limits to fix the problem as it seems to see it - the buying of access by rich folks. Contribution limits are probably part of the solution, but as the recent McCain-Feingold Act shows, when you misdefine the problem, you run the risk of making things worse. Reform efforts should not focus just on what happens once a politician gets into office, but also the process that got him or her there.
Monday, August 09, 2004
California Offical May Have Received Illegally Funneled Campaign Contributions
As Vanessa Hua and Christian Berthelsen report in The San Francisco Chronicle:
As Vanessa Hua and Christian Berthelsen report in The San Francisco Chronicle:
A San Francisco nonprofit group paid $108,000 from a state grant to two individuals and two companies who then made donations of nearly identical amounts to Kevin Shelley's successful 2002 campaign for California secretary of state.
The nonprofit group received the grant to build a community center that was never built. California law prohibits grants for work not yet completed.
The $108,000 in payments from the nonprofit to the contributing businesses and people were made for services rendered in connection with the same center. At least one of the individuals reports having done no work for the center, calling into question the legitimacy of the payments. California law also prohibits funneling campaign contributions through false donors to hide the true source of the contributions.
The donations occurred in the middle of the hotly-contested 2002 campaign for Secretary of State - Shelley won his primary election over March Fong Eu by less than five points in March 2002 and won the general election over Keith Olberg than less than four points - and accounted for nearly 5% of Shelley's campaign warchest.
Shelley has responded to the these reports:
If this sequence of events is true, very frankly I'm disappointed and more than outraged. I don't know what, if any, inappropriate behavior was engaged in by individual donors to my campaign, but I intend to find out. I expect each and every one of my donors to participate in the political process in an above-board manner. If any contributions to my campaign prove to be inappropriate, we'll return the money immediately.Even if Shelley knew nothing of the questionable nature of these transactions, that they took place undetected shows that the oversight of campaign contributions needs to be beefed up. With California's $21,200 contribution limits, wealthy interests already can and do dominate the state's political process, drowning out the voice of average citizens. It is not too much to ask of campaigns that they be held responsible for determining the source of campaign contributions in the tens of thousands of dollars. If candidates like Shelley want the benefit of the huge infusions of big-money cash, they should also bear this responsibility - simply expecting donors to play by the rules is obviously not going to cut it.
