|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication
Preface
Introduction
Part
1 Money Rules
1.
A Day In The Life of An Average Citizen
2.
Return on Investment
3.
One Billion Dollars
4.
The Money Chase
Part 2
Democracy Loses
5.
Fewer, Pre-selected Candidates
6.
Increased Corruption or
the Appearance of Corruption
7.
Decreased Representation
8.
Reduced Public Confidence
END
OF PREVIEW
NOTE:
Footnotes exist for this preview edition, but are not presented here on
the web site.
Here,
in italics, is the "Table of Contents" for the remainder of my
Book. It's subject to change.
Part 3
Case Study - Campaign Cash In Action
9. Enron Corporation -
Buying Access and Influence
Ken Lay's Early Beginnings
The Birth of Enron
Political Investments
Political Returns
Too Hot to Touch
Enron Reflections
Part 4
Citizens Pay
10.
How Much and How Often
11.
Inflated Costs for Drugs
12.
Higher Costs for Fuel and Electricity
13.
Higher Taxes to Subsidize the TV Broadcasting Industry
14.
You Don’t Care – Mitch McConnell Bets Against You
Part
5
The 1st Amendment
15.
Our Speech or Theirs
16.
The Supreme Court
17.
Pieces of the Puzzle
Individual Contributions
PAC Money
Soft Money
Independent Expenditures
18.
The Great Split in the American Civil Liberties Union
19.
First Amendment Scholars Speak
20.
The Fight For Reform
Part 6
Distorting Our Nation’s Priorities
21.
Budget Reflections
22.
National Security
23.
Education
24.
Health Care
25.
Environment
Part 7
Resurrecting Our Democracy
26.
Our Rights to Representation
27.
Money from Citizens – Not Special Interests
Private Returns For Citizens
Public Returns For Citizens
28.
Grassroots Progress
Maine
Massachusetts
Vermont
Arizona
29.
The Road From Here
©
2001 by Rick Hubbard, a/k/a Richard M. Hubbard. All rights
reserved.
*************************************************
DEDICATION
This book is dedicated to a woman who is
particularly special to me. She symbolizes all the citizens in America
who understand the importance of restoring our democracy and equality of
citizen participation in our political system. These are the citizens
who are working, often in little noticed ways, to educate others about
the importance of this issue. Specifically, I speak of feisty,
committed, persevering 91 year old Doris Haddock of Dublin New
Hampshire, known affectionately to many of us simply as “Granny D.”
It was Granny D, then 88, who on New Year’s Day, 1999, in
Pasadena, California began her walk across America to highlight the
importance of campaign finance reform. Through her many television,
newspaper and radio interviews and appearances and also through her
website at http://grannyd.com she
reached hundreds of thousands of American citizens to raise awareness
about how big campaign contributions from special interests adversely
affects the vast majority of American citizens. Granny
D traveled 10 miles a day, camping out at night or sleeping in private
homes. Ignoring her bad back, arthritis and emphysema, she completed the
3,200-mile trip in 14 months, shortly after her 90th birthday, arriving
in Washington on February 29, 2000, to the tune of 2,200 supporters
chanting, "Go, Granny, Go!” She brought with her petition
signatures from thousands of American citizens demanding that Congress
enact meaningful reform.
Granny D inspired me. I
figured that if a then-89 year old woman could feel strongly enough
about this issue to walk more than 3000 miles across our entire country,
the least I could do, as a then 58 year old Vermont candidate for
the U.S. Senate, was to walk the length and breadth of my home state to
highlight this same issue.
©
2001 by Rick Hubbard, a/k/a Richard M. Hubbard. All rights
reserved.
*************************************************
PREFACE
This book is for you.
You are likely one of the 96 percent, the vast majority of us
American citizens, who did not contribute a dime to any federal
candidate or political party in the year 2000 federal elections. If you
are among that remaining 4 percent who actually did contribute, chances
are also excellent that you are not one of the 3/10ths of only one
percent of American individuals who contributed 44 percent of all
individual contributions in amounts of $200 or more. One third of these
amounts of $200 or more were contributed in maximum amounts of $1,000.
The political candidates you and I chose among, (if we even
voted, since more than half of us did not), in the November 2000
elections, were pre-selected and brought to us by a tiny minority of the
wealthiest and most powerful financial
interests in America, which helps to explain why millions of Americans
regard our elected public officials, our employees, as representing
"them" more than "us."
So why should we care that winning
candidates owe their rich and powerful backers a great debt of
gratitude, and have tremendous incentive to please them in crafting
federal policy and legislation? Because this is where we, the vast
majority of citizens are affected. Pleasing these rich and powerful
backers ends up costing us plenty, regardless what political party we
support or ideology we hold. The
power of big money from special interests treats all of us, Republicans,
Democrats, Progressives, Independents, and Americans of other parties,
with equal arrogance.
We
all pay the higher prices for brand name drugs before being allowed to
buy cheaper generic substitutes, because Congress, after receiving $18.6
million in campaign contributions, recently passed legislation to extend
their drug patents longer, costing us as consumers as much as $550
million a year at the pharmacy counter.
We
all pay higher prices for larger, heavier cars using extra gallons of
gas at the pump because Congress, after receiving over $5.7 million
dollars in political contributions, has failed for the last 5 years to
increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to require that
the Automobile industry continue to manufacture a mix of automobiles
each year that are increasingly fuel efficient. The higher prices for
larger cars using extra gas at the pump cost us an estimated $59 billion
a year. That’s over $600 per average American family from our wallets.
We
all pay more taxes to our federal treasury because Congress took
substantial contributions from the broadcasting industry and, five years
ago, legislated away a new digital part of the public airways for free
to existing licensed broadcast companies. The Federal Communications Commission estimates that not
auctioning off the right to make money using the public airways for
digital transmission cost our federal treasury up to $70 billion
dollars. That’s over $700 per American family we have to make up in
our taxes.
Taken
together, we all pay hundreds of billions of dollars for these and for
other benefits conferred by Congress on these special interests. We pay
part of this money out of our wallets at places like the pharmacy
counter and at the gas pump. We pay more money from our checkbooks, for
higher taxes to replace the money that never came into our federal
treasury, due to Congressional subsidies and gifts to selected
industries.
Congressional
leaders opposing change to this system don’t even attempt to explain
why continuing this system is in the best interests of us, the vast
majority of American citizens. Mitch McConnell, who leads the offensive
to protect the current system openly bets against us. He openly and
arrogantly says we don’t care, it’s not important enough to us. The
wealthy and powerful financial interests supporting incumbents in
Congress bet against us as well. They know that the less we care, the
less we pay attention and participate, the more leverage they have in
getting their views heard and their preferred legislation and policies
enacted. In short, our indifference increases their strength and
influence.
I
believe in the American public’s ability, once properly informed and
motivated, to take action and make sensible decisions about the future
of our democracy and our full representation as citizens. The first step
is to become better informed and motivated. That is the purpose of this
book. In it I will explain how the present system affects us, what it
costs us, and why it reduces our confidence in government today.
The extensive influence of money in our political system may be
the most important public policy issue of our time, for it goes to the
heart of our democracy and equality of representation.
Our
government should be, as Abraham Lincoln so well expressed it in his
Gettysburg Address, a government of the people, by the people and for
the people. So let us return our government to this ideal. As American
citizens, we have a constant responsibility that our government
remain of, by and for the people, not the special interests. The very
survival of our representative democracy is at stake. Our right to alter
our government for the common good must be used to check the influence
of special interests with disproportionate access in our halls of
Congress, and to restore our government in service of our common
interests as citizens. This is our duty, to our children and to future
generations of American citizens.
©
2001 by Rick Hubbard, a/k/a Richard M. Hubbard. All rights
reserved.
*************************************************
INTRODUCTION
On July 4, 1776, our thirteen North American colonies declared
their independence from Great Britain and the founding of the United
States. The Declaration of
Independence enumerated their grievances and injustices in order to
secure more appropriate representation for its citizens. On September
17, 1787 delegates from the original 12 states enacted our Constitution.
Since that time our government has grown to include 50 states and we
have enacted 27 amendments to our Constitution, including the famous
first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights.
More than two centuries later, on April 21, 2000, shortly after
2pm, 90-year-old Doris Haddock of Dublin, New Hampshire mounted the
steps and entered the Capitol of the United States of America. Inside,
she made her way into the Capitol’s rotunda and began to speak. Here
are some of her remarks:
“Dear Friends,
‘The First Amendment to the Constitution
says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
‘We are peaceably assembled here, in this
our hall, to freely speak, to petition our Government. Our grievance is
that we no longer have proper representation. Our elected leaders are
consumed by the need to raise election funds from special interests, and
they no longer are able to represent the needs of the people or of our
ravaged earth.
‘We must declare our independence from the
corrupting bonds of big money in our election campaigns by reforming our
campaign finance system. We must alter our government. As a people, we
know how to declare our independence and authorize alterations of our
government. Here is how we did so in Congress, July 4, 1776:
Just as Granny D began to read from our Declaration of
Independence she was interrupted and she and some 31 others with her
were arrested.
On Wednesday, May 24th, Granny D was in
court to plead guilty to the charge of demonstrating in the Capitol
building.
Then Chief Judge Hamilton of the District of Columbia Superior Court was
silent after Doris made this statement:
“I was reading from the Declaration of
Independence to make the point that we must declare our independence
from the corrupting bonds of big money in our election campaigns. And so
I was reading these very words when my hands were pulled behind me and
bound:
‘We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it.”
In sentencing, Judge Hamilton offered this thoughtful
perspective to Doris and the other demonstrators:
"As
you know, the strength of our great country lies in its Constitution and
her laws and in her courts. But more fundamentally, the strength of our
great country lies in the resolve of her citizens to stand up for what
is right when the masses are silent. And, unfortunately, sometimes it
becomes the lot of the few, sometimes like yourselves, to stand up for
what's right when the masses are silent, because not always does the law
move so fast and so judiciously as to always be right. But given the
resolve of the citizens of this great country, in time, however, slowly,
the law will catch up eventually."
With that, Judge Hamilton released Doris and the others for time
served and a minimal fine.
©
2001 by Rick Hubbard, a/k/a Richard M. Hubbard. All rights
reserved.
*************************************************
Why should we care how campaign money is contributed to candidates?
Because it influences our lives and costs us plenty. Here's how.
Imagine for a moment you’ve just begun to awake and chase the
sleep away. You’re lying in bed at the beginning of a beautiful blue
sky spring morning in your hometown of Edgar Springs, Missouri, some 846
miles west of Washington, D.C., and notable mostly because it’s the
new US population center, according to the 2000 US Census. You’re
Sally Jones, typical American citizen, age 38, married to Jack who’s
44 years old, stocky, brown eyed, black haired and still asleep beside
you in the queen sized bed of your modest ranch home. Sarah, your
daughter, age 14, is also still quiet and most likely asleep in the next
bedroom. You glance at your watch and realize it’s 10 minutes before
the alarm goes off at 6:30am, and you have a few more minutes to
yourself.
As you lie in bed, gazing out the skylight above, you reflect on
the life you and your family have managed so far, and the day ahead. You
own your own home, a 2 bedroom 1750 square foot ranch house on 3 acres
of rural land just outside Edgar Springs. It’s been 9 years since you
bought it, with a lot of help from the local bank. You drive a 1998 blue
Ford Taurus, purchased new 3 years ago, to your job as an aid at the
local elementary school. Jack drives a new Chevy Tahoe Sport Utility
Vehicle to his job as a foreman with the local town highway department.
You enjoy your home, family, and lifestyle but worry about the mortgage,
taxes and your current outstanding VISA card balance. Although you and
Jack both work hard, it seems you just can’t seem to get ahead.
Mentally, you run through your upcoming day. “Okay, on my way
to work at school, I’ll need to fill up the Taurus with gas. After
school I’ll need to check on mom”. Although still living at home,
her health is deteriorating. “On my way to visit mom, I’ll need to
stop by the local pharmacy and refill the prescription for her high
blood pressure medicine. Then, since it’s tax time I’ll need to fit
in a second stop to pick up our income tax forms that are ready at the
local accountant’s office.” I wonder, “how much will I need to
write a check for this year”.
An hour and a half later, you are out of the house and on your
way to school. As you pull into the filling station and fill your Taurus
with gas, you remember that you were here just last Thursday. “I sure
do seem to stop by often to fill this tank” you say to yourself.
Your day at school is quickly finished and at 3:30pm you climb
back into your car to continue the tasks you’ve set for yourself. Your
first stop is at the pharmacy to pick up your mom’s medicine to
control her high blood pressure. As Mike, the local pharmacist hands you
the refill of pills for
your mom, you ask yourself, “Why are prices so high?”
Your second stop is at the office of your CPA, Doris Handy, to
pick up your state and local income taxes that have just been completed
for you. As you quickly scan the forms, your eye drops to the bottom
line of the federal form. “Okay, we only need to write a check for an
extra $76 dollars for our federal taxes and we’ll get a small $40
dollar rebate on our state taxes.” You breathe a sigh of relief; the
increased payroll deductions for federal and state income taxes you and
Jack have paid all this past year have worked out about right.
With income tax returns in hand, you get back into your car and
drive the mile and a half to visit your mom at her small home. As you
drive you worry. “What’ll I do if mom’s health problems get worse?
Since dad died 2 years ago, she’s living alone on not much more than
Social Security sends her. She can’t afford health insurance and
although she’ll qualify for Medicare next year, I know there’ll be
additional unpaid costs for prescriptions and other items that Jack and
I may have to help out with if her money isn’t sufficient.”
It’s probably not terribly comforting to you that your worries
are mirrored by millions of other American citizens. Most of us are so
busy we can’t take the time to fully investigate these kinds of
concerns. It takes a lot of work by dedicated individuals plus the
resources of interested organizations to develop the facts underlying
concerns like these. Increasingly, however, these factual investigations
are occurring and the evidence suggests decisions in Washington DC by
Congress are costing us plenty. The deck is heavily stacked against you
and against all of us American citizens. Senators and Representatives in
Congress have tremendous incentive to please the small minority of
wealthy special interests who provided the campaign contributions that
helped them get elected.
For
this reason the present system distorts much of the legislation now
passed by Congress. For example, to please the automobile industry
Congress stops requiring the automobile industry to make its cars
increasingly fuel efficient, so citizens pay the extra $59 billion (over
$600 per average American family) in higher prices for heavier, more
expensive vehicles and in more money at the pump for extra gas. To
please the pharmaceutical industry, Congress grants a few years of extra
patent protection so we citizens pay higher prices for brand name drugs
for a longer time before being able to buy cheaper generic substitutes.
This moves as much as $550 million a year from our citizen pockets to
industry coffers. To please the television broadcasting industry in
switching from analog to digital television, Congress allocates part of
the public airways to existing television broadcasters for free without
going to auction, so we citizens at tax time must balance our federal
budget and make up in income tax payments and user fees, the $70 billion
(over $700 per U.S. household) not collected from the broadcasting
industry.
For all these reasons we should care. We are paying big time so
other wealthy and powerful special interests can get a great return on their
investment in campaign contributions.
©
2001 by Rick Hubbard, a/k/a Richard M. Hubbard. All rights
reserved.
*************************************************
2
Return On Investment
Suppose I could offer you, and every American citizen, at reasonable
risk, an investment that would likely double your money every year, now
and into the foreseeable future. Each year you’d get your investment
back, plus an equal sum as a return on your investment and this would
continue each year thereafter. Interested?
I’ll bet you are! I can’t invest my own money today and get a
return anywhere near as good as this. A return of 100% a year is a
whopper of an investment.
Our normal ways to invest money produce much, much, lower
returns. If we invest in a savings or Certificate of Deposit account,
we’re likely to earn a return of 2-5% annually.
Investing long term in the stock market might bring us annual
real earnings of from 4% to, if we are fortunate,15% and we are likely
to average much closer to the lower number.
In short, most of us can’t even come close to an occasional 15
– 25% return. An annual return of 100% or more is simply out of the
ballpark.
So when I suggest there’s a way all American citizens can earn,
with reasonable risk, an annual return of more than 100% now and into
the foreseeable future, I bet you’re suspicious. That’s fair. We
citizens should be careful in evaluating such proposals. But consider
this. Suppose with an investment of $1 billion dollars from our federal
treasury on behalf of all citizens, we could have changed
Congress’s decision in 1996 to allocate for free
an additional part of the public airways to existing television
broadcasters so they could switch from analogue to digital tv.
Government auctions are
routine these days for private companies wishing to make money by
providing telecommunication services through use of the public airways
for users of items such as cell phone and pagers. Such auctions
regularly bring $5 billion to $15 billion dollars into our federal
treasury. Citizens otherwise would have to provide this money in taxes
and user fees to balance the federal budget. This added allocation of
the public airway spectrum was even more valuable to TV broadcasters,
and they reached new highs in their Congressional campaign contributions
and lobbying efforts to secure it for free.
The Federal Communications
Commission estimates that when Congress voted not to conduct this
auction of rights for TV broadcasters, and instead to legislated it away
for free, it cost our federal treasury as much as $70 billion
dollars. That's almost $700 per average American household that we
had to make up in taxes and user fees to balance our federal budget.
Think how in other circumstances this decision might have been made in
reverse, and how it would have benefited citizens.
Suppose on behalf of all citizens, a public investment of $1
billion dollars in annual CLEAN campaign money financed campaign costs
for all qualified candidates running for, and elected to, Congress.
Think how that would reduce the current disproportionate access and
influence of wealthy special interest contributors. Think of how this
would increase Congress’s incentive to place citizen interests first
and reduce Congress’s need to please their present wealthy benefactors
in formulating government policy and legislation.
If this change in outlook
and incentive convinced Congress to auction off, rather than give away
for free, the additional part of the public airways, it would have saved
citizens from having to make up the $70 billion dollars our federal
treasury never received from the TV broadcasters. Citizens would have
received a return on their entire $1 billion investment of
up to 70 times on just this one example.
This is a phenomenal return on our investment. This example is just one
of many decisions Congress makes that affect the money in our wallets
and bank accounts.
Giving big campaign funds
of hundreds of millions of dollars to Congress currently brings
special interest groups a return on their investment of hundreds of billions
of dollars annually. It has
gotten so far out of hand, that the concept can simply be flipped, to
serve citizen interests. Why shouldn’t we citizens get huge returns on
our investments? As you read the following pages and think about
the facts presented, keep this example in mind.
©
2001 by Rick Hubbard, a/k/a Richard M. Hubbard. All rights
reserved.
*************************************************
One billion dollars! In figures it's $1,000,000,000. For all those
trying to gain access and influence over Congress, the President and all
federal officeholders, this is what it takes. One billion dollars is the
approximate average annual total of all the campaign money that must now
be raised and spent by candidates for federal office.
Ninety-six percent of all American citizens don’t contribute a dime of
this one billion dollars directly to any candidate or political party.
The lion’s share of this money comes from a tiny minority of the
wealthiest and most powerful financial
interests in America. By providing this money to those candidates whose
views please them, they are able to largely select the candidates and
have substantial control over the issues and candidates that are
presented to the rest of us to choose among.
Why shouldn’t each of the rest of us, the 96 percent of us
representing the vast majority of American citizens, have as much weight
in picking candidates whose issues we like? Shouldn’t we have
as much say as those few who now have such a say and control over those
who become candidates? It’s
not likely to happen unless and until all of the campaign money,
a little more than 1 billion dollars annually at present, comes to
candidates on behalf of all American citizens. Interestingly,
this amounts to a federal investment of only about $10 for every
American household. Think of how that would change incentives for our
federal legislators elected with “clean money” on behalf of all
citizens. This would be a
giant step toward providing Congress with proper economic incentives to
form government policy and pass legislation that places American
citizens first, rather than wealthy and powerful special interests.
Whether and when that happens is up to us.
As I begin to write this, our United States Senate has just
completed its debate on campaign finance reform in March 2001. There was
much talk about dangers from our present system. Senator
Carl Levin, the well-respected senior Senator from Michigan summarized
it this way.
“We
are facing a real crisis in campaign finance in this country. We have
effectively no limits on campaign contributions, even though the law
seems to provide that there be a $1,000 contribution limit from an
individual, $5,000 from a PAC, and so forth. Because of the soft money
expenditures, we in effect have no limits on campaign contributions
anymore despite the law. The law has been evaded, avoided, bypassed,
mainly now financing television ads, often negative, called issue ads.
“I think most of us who have seen these
issue ads who have been in this profession long enough recognize that
there is no difference between the issue ad which does not name the
candidate and says that you should vote against him, and the issue ad
which says this candidate is great or his opponent is awful but doesn't
use the magic words ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' and the candidate
ad which uses the magic words ``vote for'' or ``vote against.''
During the Senate’s ensuing two week
debate on campaign finance reform, there was much discussion about how
proposed legislative changes would affect the balance between the
Republican and Democratic parties, how to even the playing field when
incumbent Senators were faced with better financed independently wealthy
challengers and about the access and influence that resulted from
present campaign finance practices and the worry Senators had about the
resulting “appearance” of corruption.
Startlingly, during the entire two weeks
there was little discussion in our United States Senate about how poorly
American citizens are served by present campaign financing practices
that often tip legislation toward the special interests that provide it,
about how much this costs American citizens, and about how this
limits the number of qualified would-be candidates who aren’t either
wealthy or have connections to wealthy interests..
By the end of the two week debate our Senate
had voted approval for several changes to existing law: a doubling of
the contributions individuals may give; an increase in the contribution
caps that apply to candidates faced with an independently wealthy and
much better financed candidate; a ban on soft money and limits on
independent expenditures near the end of election cycles. Despite the
Senate’s action, it is unlikely these measures will ultimately be
approved by the House of Representatives where they face formidable
opposition.
So how will the majority of us citizens fare
if, despite the odds, these measures are approved in approximately their
present form by the entire Congress and signed by President Bush into
law?
Currently, a tiny minority of the wealthiest
and most powerful financial interests in America contribute the bulk of
all campaign money. Doubling the maximum $1000 contribution from these
individuals to $2000 will make their contributions even more important
to candidates. These huge
increases in individual contributions are likely to largely offset
amounts lost due to the ban on soft money. Soft money is the term for
checks written without legal limit by corporations, organizations and
wealthy individuals that are not considered contributions and thus skirt
current campaign finance laws.
Certainly, some of the loopholes these
measures attempt to close are important. But will it result in any
fundamental changes that cause Congress to put the interests of the
majority of U.S. citizens ahead of the wealthy special interests?
Will it change in any significant way the
fact that the lion’s share of all the money for federal candidates,
averaging about $1 billion dollars annually today, comes from a tiny
minority of the wealthiest and most powerful financial
interests in America?
Will
it change, in any significant way, the fact that 96% of all
American citizens don’t contribute a dime of this one billion dollars
directly to any candidate or political party?
Will it change the tremendous incentive
those elected to Congress this way have to please their wealthy and
influential benefactors?
Think back. Almost $70 billion dollars
didn’t come in to our federal treasury when Congress pleased the
television broadcasters by giving them additional use of our public
airways for free. Suppose the limited changes to our campaign finance
laws proposed by the Senate were in place in 1996. Do they go far enough
to have caused Congress to decide differently to auction off the digital
spectrum to broadcasters? Do they go far enough to have saved American
citizens from having to make up this $70 billion from our taxes and user
fees? This amounts to an average extra payment of about $700 for each
household in America, in order to balance the federal budget?
Senator
Paul Wellstone of Minnesota certainly doesn’t think so. He is one of
the small minority of U.S. Senators who believe much more reform is
needed for our political system to work on behalf of all citizens. On
March 19th, 2001 he rose in frustration to speak against the
amendment offered by Senator Domenici, a Republican from New Mexico,
that would increase in the contribution caps applying to candidates
faced with an independently wealthy and much better financed candidates.
“Do you know how many U.S. citizens
contribute more than $200 to a race today? Four out of every 10,000.
That is .037 percent. Do you know how many Americans give contributions
of $1,000 or more? It is .011 percent. So it seems to me that what we
have is a system where people think if you pay, you play; if you don't
pay, you don't play.”
Senator Wellstone was greatly disturbed that the first amendment
for campaign finance reform to be considered by the U.S. Senate would
put more money from a special few into politics. “I do not
think that is what people want to hear.” he said, “And they are
right.”
“That would just lead to increasingly large contributions by a
tiny minority of our wealthiest, because average people don’t have
that money” he said. “People do not go to $500,000 barbecues and all
the rest. They have their own barbecues with their neighbors. People
make $100 contributions to charities. They do not make these kinds of
contributions.”
He warned that putting even more money into politics by the very
top of the population, by wealthy people of great financial resources,
would make candidates ever more dependent on these few for
contributions. It would end up with people who have their own resources,
millionaires, versus people who have access to millionaires and large
financial interests. “That is not the only choice.” he said.
In Senator Wellstone’s view, if the U.S. Senate was serious
about campaign finance reform, it must have a clean money, clean
election proposal with public financing. “People agree on that” he
said. “And then the public owns the elections.”
He went on to say if a candidate doesn’t
want to be bound by spending limits associated with clean money in clean
elections, then there is additional money that can go to candidates who
are being outspent. This additional money would make up for the
advantage that those who are spending their own resources have. It would
make it a level playing field.
This way, “the race still belongs to the
public” he said. “It still belongs to the people. And then the
people who get elected belong to the people. And then the Capitol
belongs to the people. And then the Government belongs to the people.
And then people have more confidence in the political process. And
people think they can be more involved. And little people, who do not
have all the money, feel more important. And they are more
important.”
“This amendment is not a great step forward. This is one big,
huge, gigantic leap backward” said Senator Wellstone.
Consider the single
previous broadcasting example. Ask yourself, did Congress give the
interests of all citizens more weight than the interests of the
television broadcasting industry in making this decision?
Said differently, imagine
the difference if the $1 billion required to explain candidates’
campaign positions to voters was contributed to candidates differently,
on behalf of all citizens. If this change of financial backing
freed Congress from the need to please their tv broadcaster benefactors
and gave Congress adequate incentive to serve citizen interests by auctioning
off the additional part of the public airways to the television
broadcasters instead of giving it away, citizen savings in this one
example could justify the ENTIRE annual $1 billion cost of public
financing for some 70 years into the future. And this is just the
savings from one example that represents the tip of the iceberg of
savings. Think of the additional savings from all the other legislation
now passed which benefits special interests at the expense of citizens.
The financial stakes are
huge for citizens. Revising the way we finance our elections to provide
Congress with economic incentives to create government policy and pass
legislation to benefit of the majority of all citizens, instead of
special interests, can produce a phenomenal return on citizen
investment.
©
2001 by Rick Hubbard, a/k/a Richard M. Hubbard. All rights
reserved.
*************************************************
Campaign spending at the federal level has rocketed upward in
recent decades.
For the two year 1983-1984
election cycle, overall campaign spending at the federal level was
$988.2 million, or an average of $494.1 million a year according to
figures from Federal Election Commission Reports as compiled by Common
Cause. Twelve years later, for the 1995-96 election cycle those same
reports show the overall total had increased to $2,131.2 million and the
yearly average to $1,065.6 million. These were both years in which we
elected our president and hence more money was spent than in the
following 1997-98 non-presidential election cycle when the figures were
traditionally lower. In this later cycle, the overall total was $1,392.4
million and the yearly average was only $696.2 million.
For the most recent
1999-2000 election cycle, again a cycle in which we elected our
president, the figures broke all prior records. [INSERT HERE the final
FEC figures once compiled and released]
The way this money is raised has had a
devastating impact on the importance of citizens in our political
process today. Many in Congress are willing to acknowledge this sorry
state of citizen participation and representation. During the 2001
Senate debate on campaign finance reform, Joe Lieberman, Democratic
Senator from Connecticut, challenged his colleagues to consider the
following observations of America’s Democratic genius, by Alexis de
Tocqueville, when he analyzed our Nation's political system during the
19th century:
‘The people reign in the American
political world as the Deity does in the universe. They are the cause
and the aim of all things; everything comes from them, and everything is
absorbed in them.’
“How far we have come.” Senator
Lieberman said. “I question whether any current observer of American
politics could repeat de Tocqueville's statement with a straight
face.”
He went on to say, “Look at what has become of our system.
Virtually every day in this city an event is held where the price of
admission far exceeds what the overwhelming majority of Americans can
ever dream of giving to a candidate or a political party. For $1,000,
$5,000, $10,000, $50,000 or $100,000, wealthy individuals or interest
groups can buy the time of candidates and elected officials, gaining
access and thereby influence that is far beyond the grasp of those who
have only their voice and their votes to offer.
Senator Lieberman believes our national political parties
publicly tout the access and influence big donor donations can buy. He
emphasized: “one even advertises on its web site that a $100,000
donation will bring meetings and contacts with Congressional leadership
throughout the year, and tells us it is `designed specifically for the
Washington-based corporate or PAC representative, a donor group whose
entry price is $15,000.
“For that amount, the party's web site
tells us, donors get into a club whose agenda is simple--bringing the
best of our party's supporters together with our congressional
leadership for a continuing, collegial dialogue on current policy
issues.''
The political parties
selling these tickets to access and influence have found buyers aplenty
according to Lieberman. In
1997 he spent the better part of a year participating in the
Governmental Affairs Committee's investigation into campaign finance
abuses during the 1996 campaign. The committee’s attention was riveted
by marginal hustlers such as Johnny Chung who compared the White House
to a subway, saying, “You have to put in coins to open the gates,”
and Roger Tamraz, who told them that he didn’t even bother to register
to vote because he knew that his donations would get him so much more.
“Is it any wonder,” said Senator
Lieberman, “with these numbers, that the American people--they who are
supposed to be the true source of our Government's authority--have been
so turned off by politics that many of them no longer trust our
Government or even bother to vote?
“This must end or our noble journey in
self-government will veer further and further from its principled
course. When the price of entry to our democracy's discussions starts to
approach the average American's annual salary, something is terribly
wrong. When we have a two-tiered system of access and influence--one for
the average volunteer and one for the big contributor--something is
terribly wrong. And when the big contributor's ticket is for a front-row
seat, while the voter's is for standing room only, something is most
definitely terribly wrong.”
Senator Olympia Snow, a
Republican from Maine, echoed Senator Lieberman. She said “There is
little question that there is a strong sense that campaigns in this
country have spiraled out of control. There is a strong sense that
elections are no longer in the hands of individual Americans.”
Our Congressional
representatives are not always open and honest about what they have to
do to raise contributions. Here is the story of one who is.
Zell Miller, the Democratic Senator from Georgia, wrote an
opinion piece in the Washington Post early in 2001 that was reprinted in
many newspapers throughout the United States. In it, he stated his deep
misgivings about the current fundraising system. He wrote he doesn’t
sleep as well today as he used to when campaigns weren’t defined by
how much money can be raised and spent.
Here is how Senator Miller describes what fundraising is like
today.
“I locked myself in a room with an aide, a
telephone, and a list of potential contributors. The aide would get the
‘mark’ on the phone, then hand me a card with the spouse's name, the
contributor's main interest, and a reminder to ‘appear chatty.’ I'd
remind the agribusinessman that I was on the Agriculture Committee; I'd
remind the banker I was on the Banking Committee.
“And then I'd make a plaintive plea for
soft money--that armpit of today's fundraising. I'd always mention some
local project I’d gotten--or hoped to get--for the person I was
talking to. Most large contributors understand only two things: what you
can do for them and what you can do to them.
“I always left that room feeling like a
cheap prostitute who'd had a busy day.”
Senator Russ Feingold, in the Senate debate on campaign finance
reform, commented on the above opinion piece by Senator Miller as
follows:
“These are Senator Miller's words. Those are powerful
words, and they are hard to stomach. I deeply admire the Senator from
Georgia for many reasons, but especially for being willing to write what
we all know to be true. Many colleagues have told me privately they are
uncomfortable with this system. One Senator told me here on the floor
that he felt like taking a shower after he had made a call for a
$250,000 contribution.
“We have Senators who can't sleep; we have
Senators who feel they have to take a shower after doing fundraising
calls. We have a pretty bizarre system. This system cheapens all of
us.”
Currently, our elected representatives can never have enough
money, and candidates and parties alike have raced to raise the most.
They are successful in doing this because contributions provide access.
On March 19th, 2001 Senator Carl Levin, the senior, well
respected, four term Democratic United States Senator from Michigan, had
this to say about how this campaign money is raised.
“In order to get these large contributions, access to us is
openly and blatantly sold. We sell lunch or dinner with ‘the committee
chairman of your choice’ for $100,000. This is a bipartisan problem.
Both parties do it.
“From an RNC, 1997 annual gala: ‘For
$100,000, you get a luncheon with the Senate and House leadership and
the Republican House and Senate committee chairmen of your choice.’
According to Senator Levin, Congress sells
access to insiders’ meetings, strategy sessions, participation in
congressional advisory groups, or trade missions. The effect of this, he
notes, is that the open solicitation of campaign contributions in
exchange for access to people with the power to affect the life or
livelihood of the person being solicited creates an appearance of
impropriety and a misuse of power.
“From the Democratic
National Committee” he reported, “for $100,000, you get a meeting
with the President, you go on a trade mission with leadership as they
travel abroad to examine current and developing political and economic
issues, and a whole lot of other benefits--large contributions in
exchange for access.”
The conclusions drawn by
these well respected Senators were seconded by Charles Lewis and the
Center for Public Integrity who extensively researched campaign finance
facts and trends in their book “The Buying of the President 2000.”
In it they commented that the ruling class of politicians and patrons
has not felt compelled to open democracy to greater citizen
participation.
For example, they note
that the 1996 Presidential election revealed what moneyed interests have
done to the political process and they quoted journalist Elizabeth Drew
who said in her 1999 book, The Corruption of American Politics:
“The abuses of the campaign finance system, as practiced by both
parties in 1996 …. destroyed what was left of this country’s
campaign finance laws. There were now effectively no limits on how much
money could be raised and spent in a campaign, and the limits on how it
could be raised were rendered meaningless. Powerful people had
undermined the law…….”
©
2001 by Rick Hubbard, a/k/a Richard M. Hubbard. All rights
reserved.
************************************************
*************************************************
Current campaign finance practices limit and pre-select candidates due
to the tremendous amounts of money that must be raised. That’s what
the overwhelming evidence suggests!
We’d like to think that we, as citizens, get to chose who will
represent us as our candidates for President, Senator or Representative.
Before making this choice, we ideally would like to know, among other
things, the educational and professional backgrounds of the candidates,
their character, their positions in depth on important issues, how well
they articulate these issues and how well they hold their own in debate
with other candidates. Unfortunately, we, the vast majority of American
citizens don’t get to choose who our candidates will be. That is
largely predetermined by others.
“The dirty secret of American presidential politics is that the
nation’s wealthiest interests largely determine who will be the next
President of the United States in the year before the
election.” That’s the conclusion Charles Lewis and The Center for
Public Integrity reached after a great deal of analysis in their book
The Buying of the President 2000.
They go on to say “As political fund raising consultant Stan
Huckaby has noted, without exception, in every election since 1976, the
candidate who has raised the most money by the end of the year preceding
the election, and who has been eligible for federal matching funds, has
become his party’s nominee for President.”
Here’s an example from my state of Vermont that illustrates how
important money is to the political process. Vermont recently passed
legislation providing public financing to qualifying candidates for
governor and lieutenant governor. To
qualify for public financing a candidate must show they have a
significant following for their issues. For the primary, candidates for
governor must raise a total amount of no less than $35,000.00 collected
from no fewer than 1,500 qualified individual contributors, each making
a contribution of no more than $50.00. This qualifies Gubernatorial
candidates to receive and spend a total of $75,000 in the primary
election and an additional $225,000 in the general election if they win
their primary. This money is provided from the treasury of the State of
Vermont on behalf of all its citizens, hence the term “public
financing.” Vermont law seeks to insure that candidates for public
financing are only those who can obtain broad support from large numbers
of individual Vermonters in small financial amounts.
In Vermont’s 2000 gubernatorial election, Progressive Party
candidate Anthony Pollina advocated a series of positions on issues
targeted heavily toward “working people”. The majority of working
people in Vermont, as throughout the United States, are not wealthy and
do not earn incomes anywhere near equivalent of the small minority of
individuals who provide the largest total dollar amounts of individual
campaign contributions nationwide.
Anthony Pollina qualified
to become a gubernatorial candidate by raising about $38,000 from 1,621
Vermont individuals in small amounts of no more than $50.00.
Vermont is a small state
with a total 2000 population of only about 609,000 of which about
427,000 are registered voters. At the time candidate Pollina qualified,
the $38,000 he raised, represented only about 1/16th of the
$657,000 or more the incumbent governor, Howard Dean, raised in his
previously successful 1998 election.
Without triggering public
financing, $38,000 is not enough to send a single mailing to each of the
427,000 registered voters for the 2000 election. Absent public
financing, a candidate with only $38,000 simply cannot provide
voters in a state-wide race with sufficient information about the
candidate’s positions on issues to allow voters to make an informed,
intelligent choice.
But what’s astounding
about the 1,621 voters who contributed to candidate Pollina’s campaign
is that, at the time he qualified, those 1621 voters, according to local
political understanding, may have represented the largest number
of individual contributors to any political candidate in the entire
political history of the state of Vermont! Public financing had changed
the ground-rules. Now there was incentive to involve large numbers of
citizen contributors rather than simply to raise large amounts of money
from smaller numbers of contributors.
Incumbent governor Howard
Dean, in his previously successful 1998 re-election, had raised and
spent his $657,000, more than 16 times as much campaign money, from an
even smaller number of individuals.
Governor Dean also filed for public financing shortly after
Anthony Pollina and raised the bar another notch. He ultimately raised
$61,743 from 2,234 individuals and publicly stated that it was extremely
difficult for him to accomplish this. Shortly, thereafter he withdrew
his request for public financing. Before the end of the election,
Governor Dean went on to raise $69,756 more from only 442 additional
Vermonters plus a whopping $611,598 from only 113 out of state
contributors. All of these amounts totaled
$742,097 which he added to previously unspent 1998 campaign
contributions of $266,718 to win the 2000 general election.
If a candidate has
positions that are attractive enough to involve large numbers of those
citizens he or she can reach in the early stages of becoming a
candidate, there is a powerful argument that our democracy and citizen
choice are strengthened by providing that candidate with sufficient
resources to spread his or her message statewide so all citizens can
learn enough to make an informed intelligent choice about whether to
vote for that candidate. Common sense suggests that selecting our
elected representatives ought to be about their educational,
professional and political background, their character, their positions
on issues and their ability to articulate and debate these positions.
Instead the more crucial element today is too often about how much money
a candidate has amassed to skillfully present limited aspects of their
positions in carefully scripted 30 second media spots promoting their
candidacy.
Senator Mitch McConnell,
Republican of Kentucky, is a major cheerleader for big money
contributions. He’s reported by the Newhouse News Service/Ann Arbor
News on April 29th, 1997 to have said: "If you are able
to raise a lot of money it means you have a lot of support, and I think
that should be applauded, not condemned." As the previous Vermont
example shows, Senator McConnell is wrong. Worse, he’s being
deliberately misleading. Being able to raise a lot of money has little
to do with having a lot of support, if support is measured in terms of
having lots of voters involved in support of one’s campaign. It simply
means one has a lot of money, period!
Joshua Rozenkranz of The
Brennan Center for Justice describes the effects of the money chase as
follows: “A candidate driven to raise an unlimited amount of money,
even in smaller amounts, must constantly calculate what impact his next
official act will have on the money flow. As Rep. Tim Penny (D-Minn.)
put it, ‘There’s ….. no check for a vote. But nonetheless, the
influence is there. Candidates know where their money is coming from.
And they know they’re going to risk losing that money if certain
groups are displeased with them.’ Every act – whether to vote one
way or another on pending legislation, to introduce or sponsor a bill,
to deliver a speech, or to conduct a committee hearing – must be
assessed in terms of its potential to attract or repel campaign funds.
The pressure manifests itself not just in action, but also in inaction:
the bill never introduced, the speech never given, the hearing never
held. In a world of spiraling spending, every new idea must be cost
effective. Unless an idea promises a cash payoff, candidates cannot
afford the luxury of experimentation. Thus, new approaches to community
problems that do not appeal to constituencies able to translate
preferences into cash will not be seriously considered. The result is an
artificially constrained public agenda tilted strongly toward those who
can back their preferences with significant amounts of cash.”
Is it corruption if the
candidate’s money chase amounts to a coercive influence on
candidate’s positions and on their actions if elected to office? Our
U.S. Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed this question.
Absent
public financing, a candidate who wants to win, has tremendous incentive
to focus on raising large amounts of money in whatever is the most
efficient manner. The alternative of getting financial support from
large numbers of voters if this will not result in large amounts of
campaign contributions, simply isn’t attractive strategy. The problem
is, ordinary citizens become increasingly irrelevant and bypassed by
this strategy.
Common sense would again
suggest our democratic process is strongest when a candidate involves as
many citizens as possible in support of his or her selection as a
candidate. Yet our
political system discourages this approach with regard to raising the
money necessary to become a viable candidate and communicate one’s
message to voters. Currently, in this regard, raising the most money in
the most efficient manner is encouraged. Unfortunately, the vast
majority of us American citizens aren’t financially wealthy enough to
participate heavily in this part of the selection process. Thus by
default we cede our ability to select candidates to the wealthiest and
most powerful interest groups amongst us. It also allows those few who
are independently wealthy the choice to become candidates if they are
willing to spend their own money.
Senator
Dick Durbin, Democrat from Illinois, has this to say about independently
wealthy candidates. “Sadly, our system of government, and certainly
our system of political campaigns, is geared so that those with the most
money can overwhelm candidates of modest means.” I think candidates in
America are now broken down into two categories. I call them M&Ms or
megamillionaires and mere mortals. I happen to be in the second
category. If you are a mere mortal running for office nowadays, you
spend every waking moment on the telephone trying to figure out ways to
raise the literally millions of dollars necessary for your election
campaign. This is a reality. You can walk along the streets of your
hometown and people race to the other side of the street to avoid you
because they are afraid you are going to ask for another contribution.
The mega-millionaire candidate, according to Senator Durbin,
simply decides his or her idea of a fundraiser is pouring a nice glass
of wine while writing a personal check for millions of dollars to their
campaign, and declaring success! Meanwhile, mere mortals, the other
candidates trying to be involved, have to raise money phone call after
phone call, letter after letter, small check after small check, all
disclosed, all accounted for, trying match the campaign resources of the
person who has written one check for millions of dollars to their
campaign.
Incumbent Senator
Durbin, despite his concern about competition from mega-millionaire
candidates, is one of those incumbent Senators who have mastered the
rules of the game. More distressing, according to Joshua Rosenkrantz of
the Brennan Center for Justice, are the great number of would-be
candidates – community leaders, business leaders, educators, activists
and religious leaders – who never enter the race because they are not
financially viable or are unwilling to compromise their principles and
demean themselves by wallowing in the sewers of fundraising. He notes
that throughout the nation, stories abound of potential candidates eager
to serve but discouraged by party chairs who are not interested unless
they hear the right answer to two threshold questions: How deep is your
pocket? And how high can you fill it?
It’s almost as if
we’ve institutionalized a “wealth primary” according to Jamin B.
Raskin and John Bonifaz, members of the Brennan Center Working Group on
Campaign Finance Litigation. The
wealth primary effectively bars from elective politics anyone who lacks
the money or wealthy contacts that are indispensable to an effective
race. As Joshua Rosenkrantz further points out, the talent and energy
that is shut out of public service by such a wealth primary is beyond
estimation. Incumbents understand this dynamic and exploit it to the
fullest. One of the
principle motives for amassing a huge early war chest is to scare away
competition.
The first question often
asked by incumbent Senators when they learn they have a primary
challenger is, “How much money has the challenger raised?” Not,
“What is their educational, professional or political background, or
their character?’ or “What is their position on important issues?”
Unfortunately, during the
March, 2000 debates on campaign finance reform, our Senators spent very
little time worrying about how citizens are deprived of greater choice
among candidates due to the way money is presently raised. Instead they
spent most of their time debating how to level the playing field for
Senators faced with mega-millionaire challengers and worrying about how
proposed changes would affect the Republican and Democratic parties in
the political process.
Rosenkrantz writes that
this behavior resonates powerfully with what citizens and judges
appreciate as a critical problem with our democracy – “that we are
governed by an entrenched cadre of politicians who manipulate the rules
to preserve their own power. They manipulate legislative districts to
create safe seats and they master the rules of fundraising to block
effective challenges. Ultimately, voters have little real choice as to
who will represent them.”
©
2001 by Rick Hubbard, a/k/a Richard M. Hubbard. All rights
reserved.
*************************************************
Current campaign finance practices increase the appearance of
corruption, if not
corruption itself. Decide for yourself which way the scales tilt.
On Thursday, October 14th, 1999 a memorable debate
occurred over corruption in the United States Senate. Kentucky Senator
Mitch McConnell attacked Arizona Senator John McCain who had alleged
that corruption permeats the political process in our U.S. Senate and
that the process of raising campaign money influences votes of every
Senator, though he refused to name names for reasons of friendship,
courtesy, and the dignity of the U.S. Senate.
Senator McConnell attacked Senator McCain for refusing to name
names.
“Who is corrupt?” he thundered. “How can it be corruption
if no one is corrupt. That is like saying the gang is corrupt but none
of the gangsters are. If there is corruption, someone must be
corrupt.”
This interchange between Senator McConnell and Senator McCain
illustrates the fine line Congress dances when discussing this issue.
Senator McConnell’s logic is impeccable. Of course, if the institution
of the U.S. Senate is corrupt, someone must be corrupt. But Senators may
not admit it. In a narrow sense, an explicitly negotiated deal in which
a Senator promised legislative favors in return for campaign money is
outright bribery, which is already illegal.
This is “quid pro quo” corruption.
But as Joshua Rosenkranz of The Brennan Center points out, this
is not what really goes on. “Major contributors do not need to
explicitly negotiate deals in order to exercise undue influence over the
candidates they support. As a general matter, a major contributor’s
unspoken threat to cut off funds is enough to make a candidate think
twice before disappointing that contributor.
Here is what a few former members of Congress have to say about it. The
quotes are from interviews by journalists of The Center for Responsive
Politics in connection with their book Speaking Freely.
“There’s not
tit-for-tat in this business, no check for a vote. But nonetheless, the
influence is there. Candidates know where their money is coming from.”
– Rep. Tim Penny (D-Minnesota)
“What happens is
– at least what happened to me is – [I would] usually get a list of
30 lobbyings, [and start] calling them, asking them to be
on my committee and raise me $5,000 or $10,000 by a specified date. And
then when they call and say, ‘Wyche, I’d like to talk to you about
the agricultural bill or banking bill coming up next week,’ you say to
yourself, ‘Well, absolutely.’ How can you not? – Sen. Wyche Fowler
(D-Georgia)
“If you’re on
Ways and Means, like Pete Stark [D-California] and some of my friends,
anytime you want you can have a cozy little lunch downtown and tell them
[the lobbyists] it’s going to cost $1,000 or whatever it is, and the
special interests flock – flock – to your luncheon. – Rep. Don
Edwards (D-California)
“If they don’t
like the guy, but he’s a powerful subcommittee chairman, they’re
going to give to him. They’re not going to alienate somebody who has
their business interests in the palm of his hand. – Rep. Leslie Byrne
(D-Virginia)
“On Ways and Means, you can vote against them day and night and
certain business groups will keep giving because they want the access,
they want to keep the door open. They also know you can do them some
harm if you’re antagonistic to them.” – Rep. Tim Penny
(D-Minnesota)
“You get invited to a
dinner somewhere and someone gives you some money. And then you get a
call a month later and he wants to see you. Are you going to say no …
You’re not going to say no. So it does buy access.” – Rep Peter
Kostmayer (D-Pennsylvania)
“People who contribute get the ear of the member and the ear of
the staff. They have the access – and access is it. Access is power.
Access is clout. That’s how this thing works.” – Rep. Romano
Mazzoli (D-Kentucky)
Big contributions help to ensure their special interest views on
government policy and legislation are presented, discussed and
considered by the Senators and Representatives who are their
beneficiaries. Time is scarce and the viewpoints of average citizens,
who cannot compete in the amount of contributions given, often are not
as fully or carefully presented. Then, when individual Senators and
Representatives make their “independent” decision on legislation,
incumbents in Congress have tremendous incentive to please their wealthy
benefactors, which often tips government policy and legislation toward
these special interests, at the expense of ordinary citizens.
What the public sees is a system by which access and influence is gained
through the size of a check, not the weight of an argument.
In April of 1997, the New York Times and CBS News conducted and
released a poll that asked the question: “In general, do many public
officials make or change policy decisions as a result of money they
receive from major contributors?” 75% of the respondents said YES!
Is this corruption? This is at the heart of the debate. Few
incumbent Senators or Representatives are willing to admit so, which is
why they tiptoe around the issue and either avoid addressing it directly
or speak instead about reducing the “appearance of corruption”.
Making changes in our political process that will reduce the
appearance of corruption does not involve an admission of wrongdoing.
So when changes are finally proposed, as the Senate did in its
long overdue debate and ultimate passage of the Bipartisan Campaign
Finance Reform Act of 2001, those changes are often far less than what
is necessary to fully put citizen interests first. As I write this, the
House is debating the companion Shays Meehan legislation.
Despite vigorous debate over whether to amend the legislation in ways
that would weaken its effect, many in Congress would like to be able to
say they voted for “campaign finance reform” to reduce the
“appearance of corruption.” However, even if passed and signed into
law without substantial change, this legislation is unlikely to
fundamentally change the way we finance campaigns in ways that go far
enough to place citizens’ interests first, ahead of those of special
interests, in making government policy and passing legislation.
Incumbents in Congress will not readily give up their financial
advantage over challengers. The present system serves well the interests
of both incumbent Senators and Representatives and of their wealthy and
powerful special interest benefactors. Only the interests of ordinary
citizens are left behind in the present arrangement.
Bill Bradley, while a candidate for President of the United States, had
this to say Monday, November 22nd, 1999 at New Hampshire
College in Manchester, N.H. about the underlying unwillingness of
political leaders of both major parties to seriously reform the way we
finance campaigns:
“I was reminded of that famous handshake
between the leaders of our two political parties in 1995 --
President Clinton and Newt Gingrich. It was a very public handshake
signifying a very public commitment to campaign finance reform. And then
nothing happened. Nothing happened in 1995, in '96, in '97. Nothing
happened in '98 or '99.
“Five years have passed. Two elections
have passed. Two sessions of Congress have come and gone. And still
nothing has happened. Even after 1996, and the very public problems with
both parties, we've still seen no action.
“Why is that? I'll tell you. It's because
no one in Washington wants the system changed. The reality is that
behind every public handshake on this issue, there has always been a
secret handshake.
“That tacit, secret
handshake signals an agreement among politicians not to upset a system
that they use to their advantage. The public handshake was meant to be a
commitment by politicians to the public. But the secret handshake is a
commitment to the status quo, a deal between politicians and business to
keep things as usual. . . .”
So we are likely to continue to see discussion of less than
substantial changes in campaign finance laws. It is going to take a
major increase in citizen awareness and action over a considerable time
period, to bring about truly fundamental restructuring and reform of how
we finance our political process in order to place citizens’ interests
first, ahead of those of special interests, in making government policy
and passing legislation.
Here is what Senator Russ Feingold, one of the few Senators who openly
advocates for truly comprehensive reform, had to say about corruption
during the March, 2001 debate about campaign finance reform. “Money
should not define this democracy, and it doesn't have to. We don't have
to pick up the paper and read headlines such as `Influence Market:
Industries That Backed Bush Are Now Seeking Return on Investment.’
That headline ran in the March 6 Wall Street Journal. I think we all
know what that means, and so does everyone else.
“The assumption that we can be bought, or
that the President of the United States can be bought, has completely
permeated our culture. The lead of this article reads:
“For the businesses that invested more
money than ever before in George W. Bush's costly campaign for the
Presidency, the returns have already begun.”
The Senator went on to say that, in a new
presidential administration, that is quite an accusation, but it is one
that people don't hesitate to make these days. “Whether we are
Democrat or Republican, we should all be saddened by such an
accusation” he said, “perhaps angry at it, but we can't ignore it or
just blame the media for it.” He went on to quote what the great
Senator Robert La Follette, from his home state of Wisconsin, said in
response to those who argued that the press of his day, the early 1900s,
was spreading hysteria about the power of the railroads over the
Congress.
Senator La Follette said: “It does not lie
in the power of any or all of the magazines of the country or of the
press, great as it is, to destroy, without justification, the confidence
of the people in the American Congress. It rests solely with the United
States Senate to fix and maintain its own reputation for fidelity to the
public trust. It will be judged by the record. It can not repose in
security upon its exalted position and the glorious heritage of its
traditions. It is worse than folly to feel, or to profess to feel,
indifferent with respect to public judgment. If public confidence is
wanting in Congress, it is not of hasty growth, it is not the product of
jaundiced journalism. It is the result of years of disappointment and
defeat.”
Senator Feingold then went on to say, “I
think Senator La Follette had it right. It is not the media or the
public's fault if what goes on here looks corrupt. It is our fault. We
have to do something about it. Here's another recent example of the
public's distrust of our work: `Tougher Bankruptcy Laws--Compliments of
MBNA?' That headline appeared in Business Week magazine on February
26th.” MBNA is a major issuer of credit cards. “The article goes on
to say, `MBNA is about to hit pay dirt. New bankruptcy legislation is on
a fast track. Judiciary panels in the House and Senate have held
perfunctory hearings, and a bill could be on the House and Senate floors
as early as late February.' Again, the implication is clear. It is
widely assumed that the credit card issuers called the shots on the
substance of the bankruptcy bill that we passed last Thursday. Isn't it
troubling that people are so quick to assume the worst about the work we
do here on this floor? I think it's a real crisis of confidence in our
system. ……. we have to repair some of that public trust. Our
reputation is on the line. We aren't going to get a pass from the
American people on this one, and we don't deserve one.”
The appearance of corruption, according to
Senator Feingold, is rampant in our system, and it touches virtually
every issue that comes before Congress. “It's important for us to
acknowledge that millions of dollars are given in an attempt to
influence what we do,” he adds.
The Senator went on to review some issues
which he refers to as “Calling the Bankroll,” to show how far
reaching this problem of big campaign money influencing Congressional
legislation and policy really is. This money, and the influence at
citizen expense that it achieves, affects industry after industry in
America.
Senator Feingold has Called the Bankroll on
mining on public lands, the gun show loophole, the defense industry's
support of the Super Hornet and the F-22, the Y2 K Liability Act, the
Passengers' Bill of Rights, Most Favored Nation (MFN) status for China,
Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for China, and the tobacco
industry. He has talked about agriculture interests lobbying on an
agriculture appropriations bill, telecommunications interest lobbying on
a tower-siting bill, and railroad interests lobbying on a transportation
appropriations bill. He has talked about contributions surrounding the
Financial Services Modernization Act, nuclear waste policy, the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, and the ergonomics issue. He has also Called
the Bankroll on the Patients' Bill of Rights--twice, the Africa trade
bill--twice, the oil royalties amendment to the fiscal year 2000
Interior appropriations bill--twice, and has Called the Bankroll on
three tax bills, and four separate times on the bankruptcy reform
legislation that Congress just passed.
A little later in the Senate’s debate,
Senator Barbara Boxer echoed the tie-in between the legislation federal
candidates push and the large contributions they receive. She used
recently elected President George W. Bush as an example.
“The President likes things as they are. He gets these big
unregulated contributions. So what has he done? He has only been in
office a couple of months: International gag rule, a payback to the far
right that gave him a lot of money; repeal of the ergonomics workplace
protection rule, a payback against working men and women; bankruptcy
reform aimed at helping banks and credit card companies, a payback;
plans to open up the Alaska wildlife refuge for drilling, a payback to
the oil companies; reversal of his campaign pledge on CO 2, carbon
dioxide emissions, a payback to the coal industry; tax cuts aimed at the
richest people--those are the only ones who make out on this one; they
walk away and smile all the way to the bank--a payback to his
contributors.”
Senator Boxer also noted that President
Bush’s proposal on campaign finance reform, which is much weaker than
that currently being debated in the U.S. Senate, is also a payback to
all those folks previously mentioned. It insures a continuation of their
influence on legislation.
Senator Feingold had the following to say to
his fellow Senators with regard to soft money -- the unlimited
contributions to political parties or political committees given by
special interest groups and wealthy individuals. “People give soft
money to influence the outcome of these issues, plain and simple. And as
long as we allow soft money to exist, we risk damaging our credibility
when we make the decisions about the issues that the people elected us
to make. They sent us here to wrestle with some very tough issues. They
have vested us with the power to make decisions that have a profound
impact on their lives. That's a responsibility that we take very
seriously. But today, when we weigh the pros and cons of legislation,
many people think we also weigh the size of the contributions we got
from interests on both sides of the issues. And when those contributions
can be a million dollars, or even more, it seems obvious to most people
that we would reward our biggest donors.”
The Senator’s comments were made in the
context of the U.S. Senate’s debate over whether to eliminate soft
money as part of their Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001.
He could have just as aptly delivered them in a broader context.
Under our current system, even if soft money
is eliminated, it will not alter, only force tactical adjustment, in the
underlying pattern of influence big campaign contributions from special
interests have over Congress. One percent of our population now controls
40 percent of the nation’s assets, and the United States now has the
widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized country. Bundled
“individual” contributions by industry executives can continue to
accomplish what now is accomplished partly by soft money.
What’s bundling, you ask?
Industry
executives have tremendous incentive to give the $1,000 maximum
individual contributions to candidates to get access and attention to
their industry issues in Congress. They can currently give $1,000 in the
primary and another $1,000 in the general election. Their spouses, and
often their children, can give the same. They can give these
contributions to as many Senators and Representatives as they choose,
subject only to an overall contribution limit of $25,000 in any calendar
year. These individual $1,000 limits will double and the overall limit
will also increase if the Senate’s year 2001 version of campaign
finance reform ultimately becomes law.
Individual
giving extends deep into the executive ranks within each company.
Executives are expected to act in ways that benefit the company and
their salaries are set to allow this. In the aggregate, this results in
serious total amounts of campaign contributions from multiple individual
executives within each company. Multiply this behavior by the number of
companies within the industry, and it results in very serious total
amounts of money. The resulting industry total of individual
contributions are often “bundled” together and given to candidates
in a great wad of $1,000 checks by industry lobbyists as the
“individual” contributions to that candidate from the industry.
Without radical reform and full public
financing of elections, the high compensation of industry executives
coupled with the wide gap in the distribution of income and wealth in
our country effectively will insure that industry influence will
continue to predominate over our overall citizen interests in Congress.
We the public do perceive the corruption in
Congress. In its June 29th, 2001 presentation of
“Corruption Perception Index #19”, the organization Public Campaigns
summarized recent polling data for ABC News and the Washington Post,
conducted by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, PA from March 22–25, 2001.
This data showed that 80 percent of the public thinks politicians
OFTEN do special favors for people and groups who give them campaign
contributions. Seventy-four
percent of all respondents think these special favors tend to be
unethical. These are huge majorities. There is no gap in our, the
public’s, perception of the issue. We simply haven’t fully coalesced
around a responsible and truly effective solution. That full public
financing can provide an effective answer is increasingly understood by
American citizens, especially on a state and local level.
For example, the North Carolina Center for
Voter Education on March 27th – 29th, 2001
conducted a poll that asked the following question. “There
is a proposal in North Carolina to replace private campaign
contributions with public funding for governor, state legislature and
other state campaigns if the candidates voluntarily agree to spending
limits. Would you favor or oppose this proposal?” 60 percent of
respondents favored this proposal.
Vermont,
Maine and Arizona are among those states that have successfully passed
initial experiments with public financing and other states are debating
similar measures. Los Angeles and New York, among other cities, both
have public financing for local elections.
A
national poll on questions concerning campaign financing was conducted
by The New York Times and CBS News
and released on April 8, 1997. Fifty percent of all respondents
said public financing of campaigns would reduce special-interest
influence. While these results are encouraging, it’s clear the public
still has a way to go before fully embracing the concept.
©
2001 by Rick Hubbard, a/k/a Richard M. Hubbard. All rights
reserved.
*************************************************
Current campaign finance practices require raising immense amounts of
campaign money that diverts large amounts of time from Congressional
responsibilities
Today, the average Senate candidate has to
raise the equivalent of more than $3,000 per day, seven days a week, for
the entire 2,190 days of their six-year Senate term. The average
expenditures necessary for a winning U.S. Senate candidate increased
from $609,000 in 1976 to over $7 million in the 1999-2000 election
cycle.
Similarly, the average expenditure necessary
for a winning U.S. House candidate was over $800,000 in the 1999-2000
election cycle, requiring them to raise the equivalent of more than
$1,100 per day, seven days a week, for the entire 730 days of their
two-year House term.
Imagine yourself as an average U.S. Senator having to raise
$21,000 this week. Even with the help of your staff, how would you do
it? How many telephone calls would you make? How many receptions would
you organize and attend? How much time would it take?
Now imagine yourself having to take this much time and exert this
much effort next week, and the week after that, and so on for every
single week of the entire term you’ll represent your constituents.
One former member of Congress estimated that during a campaign he
and his staff spent 80 percent of their time raising contributions. In a
recent survey, one out of four candidates for the U.S. House of
Representatives say they spent more than 50% of their time
fundraising.
Raising necessary campaign funds has turned into a grueling,
time-consuming, job for many candidates and officeholders. Here is what
a few former members of Congress have to say about it. The quotes are
from interviews by journalists of The Center for Responsive Politics in
connection with their book Speaking Freely.
“I have to call people and ask them for
money. Then I have to call them and ask them again. Then I have to call
them one more time.” -- Rep. James Bacchus (D-Florida)
“It’s not that you have to find some way
of extorting money out of somebody, it’s that you simply need to make
more phone calls …., If somebody doesn’t want to give me $1,000,
I’m not going to beg him. I’ll call the next guy who might give me a
$1,000, and the guy after that, and the guy after that.” Rep. Vin
Weber (R-Minnesota)
“The time that you spend raising money,
and the number of fund-raising events I was obliged to attend or at
least stop by – gosh, you’d have five or six a night. It just wears
you out doing that. Now they’ve started the breakfast routine. You can
make more at a breakfast because you don’t have to pay as much for the
stuff you serve them.” – House Minority Leader Robert Michel
(R-Illinois)
“It becomes very time-consuming, very
arduous. And a pain in the butt.” – Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio)
“The brutal fact that we all agonize over is that if you get
two calls and one is from a constituent who wants to complain about the
Veterans Administration mistreating her father, for the 10th
time, and one is from somebody who is going to give you a party and
raise $10,000, you call back the contributor.” – Sen. Wych Fowler
(D-Georgia)
Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said in the
2001 campaign finance debate in the U.S. Senate: “No democracy can
thrive--if indeed survive--if it is awash in massive quantities of
money: Money that threatens to drown out the voice of the average voter
of average means; money that creates the appearance that a wealthy few
have a disproportionate say over public policy; and money that places
extensive demands on the time of candidates--time that they and the
voters believe is better spent discussing and debating the issues of the
day.”
As legal scholar Vincent Blasi has observed, “Legislators and
aspirants for legislative office who devote themselves to raising money
round-the-clock are not in essence representatives.” When
officeholders are raising money, they are not serving constituents,
gathering information, analyzing policy, or debating or compromising
with fellow representatives. Likewise, the quality of future
representation has to suffer when aspirants for legislative office are
not able to spend the bulk of their time learning what questions and
problems most trouble voters, formulating positions on major issues, and
holding themselves and their views up to public scrutiny.”
We citizens have the right to demand improvements in the quality
of representative democracy by controlling the time-intensive frenzy of
the money chase. Providing full public financing for federal candidates
would dramatically shorten the time for raising money and increase time
available for members of Congress to better serve the majority of their
constituents.
©
2001 by Rick Hubbard, a/k/a Richard M. Hubbard. All rights
reserved.
*************************************************
Current campaign finance practices reduce public confidence in the
health of our democracy. This in turn undermines the foundation of our
government.
The roots of our democracy began when our forefathers declared
independence from Great Britain to secure more appropriate citizen
representation. Our Declaration of Independence asserted the original
bold principles that are worth repeating again here:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed, --That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it.
At the time, it was
unprecedented to assert that government should be established to secure
rights for its people and that government derived its just powers from
the consent of the governed.
Since then, we have fought
wars to protect our nation and its democratic principles. Many of us
have had brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, great grandparents
and many other relatives and friends who gave their lives in order that
we and our children, and future generations might have a better future.
The evidence shows that our form of representative democracy is now
threatened. Do you think our dead soldiers, if asked, would say they
gave their lives to protect our nation so that a small minority of our
wealthiest and most powerful interests could outbid the majority of us
for representation?
Citizens have important reasons to reform the financing and
spending of campaigns to improve citizen representation. Former governor
Phil Hoff (D-Vermont) says the question of campaign contributions and
spending reform
is the paramount issue of our time for it goes to the
heart of democracy and its essential component of equality.
Here is the argument for how and why public confidence is
reduced, as presented by Joshua Rosenkrantz of the Brennan Center for
Justice. The influence of money has created a crisis in our democracy.
We voters perceive that money controls who runs and who wins. When we
think of elections as auctions, we conclude that the ballot offers us no
real choice. Because we feel we have no real choice, we become
disillusioned. Because we are disillusioned, we become disengaged. We
decline to vote. We decline to participate. And when we opt out as
voters, we enhance the influence of money on both elections and official
conduct.
Of course, voter cynicism and participation, however measured,
are functions of many complicated factors. But the need for campaign
finance reform surely is one of the most important of those factors.
Senator John McCain spoke of public confidence in the health of
our democracy when he rose to address his Senate colleagues at the
beginning of the March, 2000 Senate debate on campaign finance reform.
This debate centered on the so-called McCain- Feingold-Cochran bill
that, among its provisions, would ban so-called “soft money,” the
unlimited and unregulated large contributions that wealthy individuals
and corporations currently may give to political parties and political
committees.
The purpose of the legislation, he said, was “to enact fair,
bipartisan campaign finance reform that seeks no special advantage for
one party or another, but that helps change the public's widespread
belief that politicians have no greater purpose than our own
re-election. In order to achieve that end, he noted, we Senators “will
respond disproportionately to the needs of those interests that can best
finance our ambition, even if those interests conflict with the public
interest and with the governing philosophy we once sought office to
advance.”
Senator McCain then admonished his
colleagues: “The sad truth is, most Americans do believe that we
conspire to hold onto every single political advantage we have, lest we
jeopardize our incumbency by a single lost vote. Most Americans believe
that we would let this Nation pay any price, bear any burden for the
sake of securing our own ambitions, no matter how injurious the effect
might be to the national interest. And who can blame them? As long as
the wealthiest Americans and richest organized interests can make the
six and seven figure donations to political parties and gain the special
access to power that such generosity confers on the donor, most
Americans will dismiss the most virtuous politician's claim of
patriotism.”
Then he turned to arguments of the opponents
of reform who say if the public so distrusts incumbents and so dislikes
our current campaign finance system why is there no great cry in the
country to throw everyone out of office?
Acknowledging that opponents say that no one has ever lost or won
an election because of their opposition to or support for campaign
finance reform, he said: “Yet public opinion polls consistently show
that the vast majorities of our constituents want reform, and believe
our current system of campaign financing is terribly harmful to the
public good.”
In response to the observation of opponents
that voters do not rank reform among the national priorities they expect
their Government to urgently address, Senator McCain rebutted: “That
is true, but why is it so? Simply put, they don't believe it will ever
be done. They don't expect us to adopt real reforms and they defensively
keep their hopes from being raised and their inevitable disappointment
from being worse.”
“The
public just doesn't believe that either an incumbent opposing reform or
a challenger supporting it will honestly work to repair this system once
he or she has been elected under the rules, or lack thereof, that govern
it,” he said. “They distrust both. They believe that whether we
publicly advocate or oppose reform, we are all working either openly or
deceitfully to prevent even the slightest repair of a system they
believe is corrupt.”
“So they avoid investing too much hope in
the possibility that we could surprise them. And they accommodate their
disappointment by basing their pride in their country on their own
patriotism and that of their neighbors, on the civilization that they
have built and defended, and not on the hope that politicians will ever
take courage from our convictions and not our campaign treasuries.
Senator McCain remarked that a former
colleague, Senator David Boren of Oklahoma, had recently reminded him of
a poll that Time magazine has conducted over many years. He noted: “In
1961, 76 percent of Americans said yes to the question, `Do you trust
your government to do the right thing?' This year, only 19 percent of
Americans still believe that.” As to why this is so, Senator McCain
said that many events have occurred in the last 30 years to fuel their
distrust. “Assassinations, Vietnam, Watergate, and many subsequent
public scandals have squandered the public's faith in us,” he said,
“and have led more and more Americans from even taking responsibility
for our election. But surely frequent campaign finance scandals and
their real or assumed connection to misfeasance by public officials are
a major part of the problem.”
“Why should they not be?” he continued.
“Any voter with a healthy understanding of the flaws of human nature
and who notices the vast amounts of money solicited and received by
politicians cannot help but believe that we are unduly influenced by our
benefactors' generosity.”
“Why can't we all agree to this very
simple, very obvious truth: that campaign contributions from a single
source that run into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars
are not healthy to a democracy? Is that not self-evident? It is to the
people.”
A bit later in his remarks, Senator McCain observed: “Real
campaign finance reform will not cure all public cynicism about modern
politics. Nor will it completely free politics from influence peddling
or the appearance of it. But I believe it will cause many Americans who
are at present quite disaffected from the machinations of politics to
begin to see that their elected officials value their reputations more
than their incumbency. And maybe that recognition will cause them to
exercise their franchise more faithfully, to identify more closely with
political parties, to raise their expectations for the work we do. Maybe
it will even encourage more of them to seek public office, not for the
privileges bestowed upon election winners, but for the honor of serving
a great Nation.”
©
2001 by Rick Hubbard, a/k/a Richard M. Hubbard. All rights
reserved.
*************************************************
END
OF PREVIEW
NOTE:
Footnotes exist for this preview edition, but are not presented here on
the web site. |