Democracy's Daily Posts from

Huge Influx of Small Donors Neutralized by BCRA's Increased Limits

This year's presidential campaign has seen a significant increase in the number of small donors ($200 or less) who have given to the candidates, according to a recent report released by The Campaign Finance Institute.

In 2000, small donors gave $50,403,405 to presidential candidates, 23% of the total dollars given by individuals. In 2004, small donors gave $194,105,492. Many attribute the nearly fourfold increase to the campaigns' use of the internet and to the heightened public interest in this year's election. Despite these factors, the percentage of small contributions as a total of all individual contributions rose only to 33%.

What happened? Shouldn't all that money from new small donors level the playing field somewhat between them and the big donors? Hardly.

To no one's surprise, many wealthy donors took advantage of McCain-Feingold's (BCRA's) doubling of contribution limits. In 2000, big donors ($1,000 or more) accounted for 56% of money contributed to presidential candidates. In 2004, that number dropped only to 51%, in no small part because candidates took in $197,022,834 in donations of $2,000 or more.

What does it all mean? Well, despite the huge numbers of regular Americans getting involved in the political process, their voice is still muted by the voice of big money. Twenty ordinary folks who contribute $100 still have the same voice as one fatcat who contributes $2,000. That same fatcat can give $95,000 to federal candidates and committees every two years, an amount roughly equal to the median household income in the United States over the same period.

McCain-Feingold, successful in some respects, has still ended up selling most Americans short.

Free Speech vs. Paid Speech

Derek has an op-ed in today's Christian Science Monitor on the distinction between funding for the movie Fahrenheit911 and the ads run by the 527 organization Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.

Check it out.

Pennsylvania Long Past Due for Reform

As Marc Levy of the Associated Press reports, Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell's administration is "patching together" a series of proposals to limit donations to candidates for office. As recently as 2002, Rendell stated that contribution limits are "absolutely essential" and that:

"[He] would be disappointed if we didn't have something in place for 2006."

Currently, Pennsylvania has few to no restrictions on the amount of money that individuals and groups can give to a candidate. This anything-goes approach meant that, according to The Institute on Money in State Politics, just under $160 million poured into state races in Pennsylvania in 2002, including $76 million into the gubernatorial race. Ohio, a state of comparable population that does have contribution limits - although they are too high ($2,500 per individual per candidate) and have not stopped illegal funneling between county committees and candidates - saw slightly less than $91 million in contributions to state races, including $12.3 million to candidates for governor.

Pennsylvania has more state legislative districts than Ohio, which may account for some part of the discrepancy, but it does not explain why the the governor's race in Pennsylvania cost sixty million more dollars than the Ohio's. What better explains that discrepancy is the ability of wealthy interests to make unlimited donations to candidates in Pennsylvania, frequently in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Governor Ed Rendell himself received more than 40 contributions of $100,000 or more in the 2002 race. Who better to understand the role that big money plays in politics than he?

Money in politics is not necessarily a bad thing, but I imagine most folks in PA could think of better ways their government could spend those extra millions.

As governor, Rendell has a chance to talk to Pennsylvanians about why they need campaign finance reform (although I bet most already know) and some possible ways to restore the democratic rights to all those citizens in his state whose voice has been drowned out by the unchecked big money flowing into Pennsylvania politics.

When and if the politicians start addressing this issue, folks should watch out for sham reforms like Ohio's $2,500 limit, which may reduce the overall spending (generally a good thing), but which levels only the playing field between the rich and super-rich, while leaving regular people out in the cold.

For those Pennsylvanians out there who want to encourage their leaders to take this responsibility seriously, you can write to Rendell or find your legislator to let them hear your voice on the need for reforming the political system.

Progress in Placer County?

As we posted back in June, some folks in Placer County, CA (the county to the northeast of Sacramento) want to stop the big-money freight train which is steamrolling the county's elections. Art Campos of The Sacramento Bee reports that supporters of campaign reform have filed a ballot initiative with election officials that would limit campaign contributions to $250 per donor.

Especially during a presidential election, it's easy to forget how wealthy interests use relatively big campaign contributions to exert undue influence at the local level, where many important decisions are often made. The proof is in the puddin' - developers gave one recent Placer candidate half of the record-setting $236,000 he collected in campaign contributions, and another candidate at least half the $158,000 she raised. You don't suppose these developers are throwin' money away do you?

Of course not. They want development, so they back pro-development candidates with huge sums of cash. Normal folks who might disagree with the developers can't afford that kinda cash, so they're stuck hopin' for somebody who happens to agree with them on the issues who either is rich enough or has rich enough friends to compete. I don't remember anything from grade school about a democracy needing some kinda white knight to accurately reflect the will of the people.

And yet, that's where we are when wealthy interests are allowed to bankroll the candidacies and campaigns of people who agree with them. The folks in Placer County aren't saying that wealthy folks have no voice in elections, but that wealthy folks should have the same voice as the rest of us. And that sounds a lot like what I learned in grade school.

With Big Money, Corporation Tries Strong-Arm Tactics with Local DA

Recently released post-election campaign finance reports show that the unsuccessful recall effort of Humboldt County's District Attorney Paul Gallegos was the most expensive election in the county's history, costing some $700,000. Past elections averaged around $100,000 in spending.

The campaign to recall Gallegos started soon after he sued Pacific Lumber Company (PALCO) over lying to state negotiators during the 1999 Headwaters Forest deal. PALCO and its parent corporation, Houston-based Maxxam, donated a quarter of a million dollars to the recall campaign, including some $70,000 towards local signature-gatherers to get the recall on the March ballot. The PALCO contributions provided the overwhelming majority of pro-recall contributions.

There is nothing wrong with the recall process per se. As citizens of a democracy, we should have the right to remove politicians from office for corruption, incompetence, or criminal acts. But when corporations can use their huge financial advantages to essentially buy themselves a recall election, our democracy suffers. This is especially true when the corporation does so to retaliate against an elected official for representing the public interest against the corporation.

If Californians want their public officials to be accountable to them instead of a few corporations, they should push their representatives to close the loophole that allows powerful wealthy interests like PALCO to make unlimited contributions towards ballot initiatives and recalls that are often little more than corporate strong-arm tactics.