The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs is having an oversight hearing on tribes and the Federal Election Campaign Act, February 8, 2006 at 9:30 am. Mark your calendars!
Watch John McCain and Byron Dorgan grill Chairman Mike Toner and Vice Chairman Bob Lenhard! Good times, good times . . .
I haven’t gotten into the podcast thing, myself, but these are worth watching. I would assume the lessons would translate from the corporate world into government, academics or domestic life, too. Not that I’m recommending you try them . . .
USA Today writes about the “Indian tribe” “exemption” here and here. As noted here before, tribes are “persons” and may make contributions up to the limit applied to persons (currently $2,100). Apparently the House Republicans want to apply the aggregate overall limit applied to “individuals” to tribes.
I wonder if anyone is interested in whether or not tribes should be prohibited from making “electioneering communications” in the 30-day period before primary elections or the 60-day period before general elections?
Arizona Rep. David Burnell Smith has made history as the first lawmaker ousted from office by means other than impeachment, recall or criminal conviction. What did he do?:
An investigation by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission found that Smith overspent by about $6,000 during a tough 2004 primary election victory. The voter-approved law says that anybody who overspends by more than 10 percent must forfeit their office, and Smith overspent by 17 percent.
The per-resident spending limit in Arizona is the lowest of any public financing/spending limit jurisdiction - twelve cents per resident in the primary election, according to the Center for Governmental Studies. Lower than Maine’s. And Arizona is a fast-growing state where it takes funding to reach new and transient voters. Sure, Smith shouldn’t be allowed to break the primary spending limits when everyone else is following them, but is the punishment proportional to the crime? Moreover, is the spending limit sufficient? Are spending limits generally sufficiently flexible to permit enough resources in close races but not subsidize frivolous candidacies?
with 46 of the 47 Democrats in that house voting “yes.” Amusing excerpt from the news story:
A previous measure failed in the California Legislature for lack of support in 2004, but the new bill, written by Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-El Cerrito, found renewed interest following the November special election. That election, called by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, cost about $40 million in public money and incurred record spending — as much as $300 million — by the committees battling over the eight failed ballot measures.
Unless I am mistaken, the “clean elections” legislation doesn’t do anything about ballot measure spending. Or make elections cheaper to administer.
Chief Judge (and great guy) Danny J. Boggs has a Wikipedia entry. Now, you former Boggs clerks don’t rush off to add you two cents to the entry all at once!
The Millionaire’s Amendment,, which allows candidates facing a self-funded candidate to raise money under higher contribution limits, will be triggered in Illinois’s Eight House District. According to the Chicago Tribune:
McSweeney triggered the amendment Dec. 31 after he poured $664,000 of his own money into his campaign, bringing his total for last year to $998,000. Now, his Republican opponents are allowed to receive up to $6,300 in donations per individual, rather than $2,100. A Federal Election Commission spokesman said it is the first time the rule has been triggered in a House race this year. The development has led other campaigns, including those of the two other millionaires in the GOP primary, to redouble their efforts with donors who had previously given what had been the full legal limit.
Someone please explain how it is that raising $6,300 from supporters in ordinary times is unacceptably corrupting, but raising that sum in a close race with a lot at stake isn’t. Which situation creates a more meaningful debt? It would seem to me that concerns about reciprocity and undue “gratefullness” are more pungent in a tight battle.
Put another way, if a candidate isn’t corrupted by $6,300 in a tough race against a self-funder, why would he/she be in a race against someone else raising money the conventional way? Any why wouldn’t both candidates be better off as candidates - better able to focus on the issues, spending less time on the phone, etc., if they could both raise money from fewer people at the higher limit?
When, oh when will someone challenge the Millionaire’s Amendment in court, or introduce a bill to inject some sense into this little corner of campaign fiinance law?
Dan Walters (if you’re a Californian he needs no introduction) comes out for disclosure, and rejects “clean money” reforms. Walters writes:
California’s political quidnuncs are again on the move, piggybacking on the Washington scandals revolving about uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff and last year’s immensely expensive battles over state ballot measures. The political reformers term their current cause “clean money” — providing public funds to candidates if they agree to limit spending to the amounts provided, modeled after fairly new programs in a couple of other states.
(snip)
Sounds great, but it probably would be no more successful in curbing special interest influence in politics than any of its predecessors for two reasons: economic incentive and the Bill of Rights. Since politicians’ decisions have immense economic impacts on corporations, labor unions and other interest groups, they have a huge incentive to influence those decisions. And no matter how strenuously they may try, the reformers cannot undo the Bill of Rights, which allows people to influence politics, as long as it isn’t outright bribery. Historically, “reforms” have not curbed influence-peddling, but merely driven it underground, making it more difficult for the public to know what’s happening.
(snip)
It’s been said before, but bears repeating: The only “reform” that makes sense is complete and immediate disclosure of contributions, with draconian penalties for obscuring their amounts or sources, then letting the chips fall where they may as voters are told who’s giving what to whom.
Sometimes the “disclosure only” answer is described as “libertarian.” But Walters touches on a point worth thinking about - what enforcement is necessary to ensure that the “disclosure” is timely and accurate. This isn’t the “night watchman” state at work. Not at all.
By the way, the definition of “quidnunc” is here. “One who is curious to know everything that passes; one who knows or pretends to know all that is going on; a gossip; a busybody.”
A number of you attended a conference in Madison, Wisconsin this last weekend hosted by the Wisconsin Campaign Finance Project. Apparently there’s nothing else happening in Wisconsin, because the meeting was covered on W-BAY. Notable comments from that story:
At a meeting this morning, scholars said it’s nearly impossible to measure the influence that campaign contributions and lobbying efforts have on lawmakers.
Do tell. Another article on the conference is here.
Powered by WordPress