Time for public campaign financing!
You may have heard the quip, “We have the worst government money can buy.” That may be more perilously close to the truth than many people want to believe or will admit.
Regardless of various topics of discussion I strive not to be partisan, but also never to compromise the principles of debate, even if it has partisan aspects. Outright partisanship would defeat one of my objectives, which is to motivate critical thinking and encourage others to engage in introspective, honest, and respectful dialogue. I respect other’s views, and I’m always appreciative of a counter point. In any event, political-campaign financing should not be a partisan issue; it should be of great concern to all citizens of our nation. In the last days of this election period it’s a very timely topic, as we can see how enormous amounts of political dollars are being sought and saturated up to the end of poll closings. It’s not difficult, with just a little common sense and awareness, for anyone to realize the detrimental, corruptive impact this shameful political-financing system has become. If not the irresponsible use and handling of electronic voting machines, some sold and directed by Venezuelans, campaign financing is the greatest threat to our democracy, “a republic of the people and for the people.”
Now --- this is not a blanket indictment of all politician and government leaders. Over the years I have given financially to some campaigns. Many, if not most, candidates working the system with the money and lobbyist who have supported their candidacy, are, hopefully, of solid character, generally ethically clean, and not unduly influenced to betray the trust given them. But there always will be irrepressible temptations for those who are not of a fabric of exceedingly strong moral character, especially when campaigns renew every two years and pressures build to increase big-campaign coffers each reelection, such as in the U. S. House.
Whether it’s Black-gate in the N. C. House or Delay-gate in the U. S. House, every American should be sickened by a system that leads to corruption and undermining of our democratic system. What has happened in the U. S. House over the past several years is unprecedented. The fraudulence of lobbyist Jack Abramof and his cronies in the U. S. House, Tom Delay, Bob Ney, some others, and their associates, Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed and others have ascribed to a total collapse of ethical standards. And I haven’t even mentioned Duke Cunningham and William Jefferson. The honorable Republican Congressman Joe Hefley, a Reagan Republican and former chairman of the House Ethics Committee, led the eviction of Tom Delay. Hefley's ethical and honorable role was too much for Denny Hastert, House Speaker, who removed Hefley of the chairmanship for not being a Republican team player in the “anything goes for power-partisan politics.” But beyond these repugnant power plays and criminal acts are the disgraceful improprieties of congress as a whole, the pork barrel, more kindly known as “earmarks” used to payback a special-interest (in some cases) constituency, ensuring reelection. (60-Minutes had a segment last evening on earmarks.)
Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, students of American Democracy for the past 40-years watching over our Congress, in their book, “The Broken Branch,” on page 177 states: “pork barrel took off in the Senate in the 1990s and have risen logarithmically, with senators of both parties eager to take advantage. Only Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has stood up strongly against the practice. In the house, though, there were many voices opposing earmarks, including, particularly strongly, Republicans. That is, until they took over the majority in the House.” This paragraph goes on to state that earmarks have risen from 892 counts, adding up to $2.6 billion in 1992, to 13,997 for $27.3 billion by 2005.
Consider the 30,000 lobbyists, some of whom are former representatives who know well how to work the system, in Washington, DC; that’s 69-lobbyists for every U. S. House member. How can any of our representatives maintain equitable, unbiased representation for their constituents in this atmosphere? That’s not to say all lobbying is bad; it’s the sheer numbers that is certain to boost possibilities of greed and corruption.
On a personal note, in 2003 when I chaired the two-county Salvation Army Kettle Campaign, I wrote a letter to judges throughout the area to appeal for their help, with other elected public office officials, to man the kettle a standard two-hours shift in the Christmas Kettle Campaign kickoff. I got no response, except that one judge called me to inform there may be a conflict of interest. So, I contacted NC’s Judicial Code of Conduct in Raleigh to get a ruling, where upon I got this response, in part: “Some judges even refuse to pass the collection plate in their church to avoid a conflict of interest.” Well and good, but declining to man the kettle, when any individual can give $1,000 for their election (Prior to the Judicial Campaign Reform Act of 2002 $4,000 could be given.), is about as illogical as anything I’ve ever heard. It was encouraging last year when our former NC Governors, (R) Jim Holshouser, Jr. and (D) Jim Hunt, Jr. stood side-beside in TV commercials recommending the $3 designation for citizens to say "yes" on their state income tax forms to support public financing in judge elections.
There are better ways than PAC money/lobbyist and other private special interest groups holding sway over our elected government officials. Common Cause is leading the way for public financing and securing our democracy, for every vote to count. Also see Public Campaign Action Fund and Public Citizen.
Big money influence will never be eliminated but it can be contained according to Mann and Ornstein. They say there are some things short of all-out public financing to make campaign financing more equitable, such as free air time, incentives for small donors, subsidized voter brochures, other forms of public financing, and more permissive contribution limits for start-up funds. Mann and Ornstein say, “We need serious institutional reforms inside Congress to respond to the systemic corruption and to improve both process and climate.” But in all candidness “Reforms will not eliminate arrogance, greed, insensitivity, or impropriety.”
Real campaign reform is up to you and me. Complacency is our overwhelming enemy. Whether you’re a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian or Republican, to be sure, major campaign finance reform is something we can agree that is needed. But it will not happen unless “we” make it a priority issue. The best place to begin is with the First Branch of Government, the U. S. Congress. We must hold them responsible. In the least, you may just send them a simple statement: When will serious, real finance reform be enacted? United States House of Representatives and U.S. Senate
And maybe when we have real reform the negative sound-bite advertising will be curbed so that citizens can make candidate selections from a more legitimately, informative and intelligent platform.
But don’t bet your life on it. After all this is the U. S. Congress, the most “do nothing Congress” since Harry Truman’s 1947-48. Will it change?
-------------------------------------------
October 28, 2006 – NY Times
Democrats Get Late Donations From Business
By JEFF ZELENY and ARON PILHOFER
Editors’ Note Appended
WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 — Corporate America is already thinking beyond Election Day, increasing its share of last-minute donations to Democratic candidates and quietly devising strategies for how to work with Democrats if they win control of Congress.
The shift in political giving, for the first 18 days of October, has not been this pronounced in the final stages of a campaign since 1994, when Republicans swept control of the House for the first time in four decades.
Though Democratic control of either chamber of Congress is far from certain, the prospect of a power shift is leading interest groups to begin rethinking well-established relationships, with business lobbyists going as far as finding potential Democratic allies in the freshman class — even if they are still trying to defeat them on the campaign trail — and preparing to extend an olive branch the morning after the election.
Lobbyists, some of whom had fallen out of the habit of attending Democratic events, are even talking about making their way to the Sonnenalp Resort in Vail, Colo., where Democrats are holding a ski getaway on Jan. 3.
“Attendance will be high,” said Steve Elmendorf, a former Democratic Congressional aide who has a long list of business lobbying clients. “All Democratic events will see a big increase next year, no question.”
While business groups contained their Democratic contributions to only a handful of candidates throughout the year, a shifting political climate and an expanding field of competitive Congressional races has drawn increased donations from corporate political action committees.
For the first nine months of the year, for example, Pfizer’s political action committee had given 67 percent of contributions to Republican candidates. But October ushered in a sudden change of fortune, according to disclosure reports, and Democrats received 59 percent of the Pfizer contributions.
Over all, the nation’s top corporations still placed larger bets on Republican candidates. But at the very time Republicans began to fret publicly about holding control of Congress, a subtle shift began occurring in contributions to candidates, particularly in open seats.
“We keep fighting up until the last minute of the last day,” said William C. Miller, vice president for political affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, carefully measuring his words to remain positive about the Republicans’ chances. “But when the smoke clears on Nov. 8, there are certainly going to be lots of opportunities for us to get to know the new freshman class.”
An analysis by The New York Times of contributions from Oct. 1 to 18, the latest data available, shows that donations to Republicans from corporate political action committees dropped by 11 percentage points in favor of Democratic candidates, compared with corporate giving from January through September.
Republicans still received 57 percent of contributions, compared with 43 percent for Democrats, but it was the first double-digit October switch since 1994. “A lot will hold their powder for now,” said Brian Wolff, deputy executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “But after the election, we will have a lot of new friends.”
Even before the election, many new contributions were funneled toward open races, like the Eighth Congressional District in Arizona. The Democratic candidate, Gabrielle Giffords, received checks of $5,000 each from the political action committees of United Parcel Service and Union Pacific. Lockheed Martin split the difference, donating $3,000 to Ms. Giffords and sending the same amount to her Republican rival, Randall Graf.
Until October, Lockheed Martin, the giant military contractor, had been following its pattern from recent elections of giving about 70 percent of contributions from its political action committee to Republicans. But Lockheed Martin’s generosity shifted in the first half of October, with Democrats receiving 60 percent of donations, or $127,000.
While Republicans and Democrats are feverishly soliciting contributions until Election Day, campaign finance reports filed this week provide a window into the final days of a raucous midterm election campaign. The analysis of 288 corporate political action committees, which have contributed more than $100,000 this election cycle, found that at least 65 committees had increased their ratio of contributions to Democrats by at least 15 percentage points, including Sprint, United Parcel Service and Hewlett-Packard.
A notable exception to the flurry of last-minute giving is Wal-Mart.
“We had a two-year strategy to build up relationships with Democrats,” said Lee Culpepper, the vice president for federal government relations at Wal-Mart. “This wasn’t something that we decided in August that we needed to do and we ran out helter-skelter to try to do it.”
One sign of fresh interest in the prospects of Democratic Congressional races came one morning this week when more than 100 lobbyists crowded into Democratic Party headquarters on Capitol Hill. Over Dunkin’ Donuts and coffee, the executive director of the party’s Congressional committee, Karin Johanson, delivered a private briefing on the race to a sea of unfamiliar faces, despite spending 30 years in politics.
“People are excited,” she said later in an interview. “It was, by far, the best attended one ever.”
As some young Republican lobbyists fled Washington to spend the final days working on too-close-to-call races in Ohio or Pennsylvania, their senior counterparts stayed behind to begin studying prospective members of the new freshman class. Even if Republicans hold control, the next Congress will almost certainly include at least a handful of moderate Democrats who defeated Republicans and will be looking for allies in the corporate world.
Peter Welch, the Democratic candidate for Vermont’s single House seat, has already been telephoning some members of the Washington business lobby, offering an opportunity to begin a good relationship if he wins election. Never mind that his Republican opponent, Martha Rainville, has received a host of endorsements from the business community.
“The real story of the 2006 contributions is what happens in the early phase of 2007, with a change in party control,” said Bernadette A. Budde, senior vice president of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee. “There will be proverbial meet-and-greets all over town so we will have a sense of who these people are.”
Many of these meet-and-greet sessions will have a dual purpose: political action committees will offer contributions to help candidates wipe away debt their campaigns accrued during the race.
Spending in the midterm election campaign is forecast to reach $2.6 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, including $1 billion from political action committees. While many business groups have been eager to appear as if they have been handily contributing to Democratic efforts, it was not until this month that the trend became apparent enough to quantify beyond party leaders or prospective committee chairmen.
Democrats who are not in tight races — or even standing for re-election in some cases — have seen their contributions increase more than some of those facing the most competitive contests. That is an easy way, lobbyists say, for political action committees to increase the share of their Democratic contributions, a percentage that is carefully tracked by party leaders when they reach the majority.
Representative Adam Smith of Washington, who leads a coalition of centrist Democrats, said he has detected a friendlier relationship with the business community in recent months, a welcome change from years of Republican rule when “Democrats were basically frozen out in every way.”
“I hope that the new Democratic majority will take a more open and cooperative approach,” Mr. Smith said in an interview. “I hope there won’t be a sense of, ‘Oh, you gave too much money to Republicans, so we’re not going to talk to you.’ ”
Editors’ Note: Nov. 1, 2006
An article on Saturday about an increase in last-minute donations by corporations to Democratic Congressional candidates said that the Democrats would hold an annual fund-raiser in Vail, Colo., in January that Representative Nancy Pelosi of California would attend. It said that she would be the host and would be on hand to accept $15,000 checks (the amount required to attend). After the article appeared, Ms. Pelosi’s office called to say that while she had attended the event in the past, she had no plans to do so this time. The assertion that Ms. Pelosi would be there was not checked with her office before publication, but it should have been.
