Campaign finance

In the aftermath of the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, a loud cry is once again being raised to reform the process especially for judgeship races, like theSupreme Court.

I was going to write about it, but Lance Burri already did and his thoughts pretty much mirror mine, to wit,

So we’re all pretty sick of this Supreme Court election. Am I right?Sick of the negative ads. The gutter politics. The mutually assured destruction of reputation and trust.

Me, too. And I’m worried about the effect this all may have on our courts: if the Court simply becomes one more partisan football…

I may be worried unnecessarily. Six months from now, the vast majority of us will have forgotten all about it. In fact, considering today’s expected turnout, most of us may never have known.

His solution? Not what you might have read or heard elsewhere.

I’ll tell you what I’d prefer: no limits on candidate spending. No limits on the money they can raise. It’s more democratic, because it narrows the advantages rich candidates have over the rest of us.

And then enforce strict reporting requirements. You get to spend it, but we get to know where you got it.

It might not work. Or it might. One way to find out.

It won’t entirely settle the “appearance of impropriety” problem, of course, but at least it won’t run afoul of the First Amendment.

It won’t end the nastiness, either. Politics and elections will still be bare-knuckle and bloody – the more important the election, the more that will be true.

But then, none of the other “solutions” people are offering will change that, either.

Read the whole thing.

Lobbyists and term limits

Jim Burkee, a Republican candidate for Wisconsin’s fifth congressional district, writes at his MequonNOW blog, Responsibility Now, and raises some questions that need consideration,

Thus was born the K Street Project - Tom DeLay’s decade-long effort make Republicans the primary beneficiaries of lobbyist cash (Washington’s K Street is home to many of its most powerful lobbyists). In one notorious example, first reported in Washington Monthly, Tom DeLay and Haley Barbour (Chairman of the Republican National Committee) met with the CEOs of several large American corporations. DeLay made clear to the executives - mostly Republicans - that “they were expected to purge their Washington offices of Democrats and replace them with Republicans.” The offended executives promptly walked out. But Tom DeLay’s project was ultimately successful.It also killed the Republican Revolution.

In 2001, when George W. Bush cemented Republican control of Washington, there were just over 17,000 registered lobbyists in Washington. By 2007, when Republicans lost the House and Senate, there were 37,000. Since 1998, according to the Center for Public Integrity, lobbyists spent $13 billion to influence members of Congress. Lobbyist influence extended even further: Half of all retiring Members of Congress now go into lobbying, where they often collect large six and seven-figure salaries.

I can understand where Mr. Burkee is coming from. When we hear how much lobbies give to our politicians and how that money seems to influence their decisions, it’s easy to get frustrated.

But are more regulations on campaign finances required? Are term limits required? With the high cost of campaigning, aren’t we headed toward a government by elite rich people because only they can run for office?

And remember, not all lobbyists are “evil.” God help me, I’m quoting Hillary Clinton here,

“A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans,” the New York senator said in defense of her decision to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. “They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people.”

Do we punish all because some are evil?

That seems to be Mr. Burkee’s cure.

I’m just not sure it’s the right one.

Campaign finance reform?

Owen’s had a couple of pieces lately on campaign finance reform (this one will probably be in the Waukesha Freeman this Friday). James Wigderson had one recently also.

Owen’s first piece and James’s piece was followed by a guest editorial by Jack Lohman, who claims to be a Republican, even though he believes in public financing of elections and universal health care, although he does seem to be a mixed bag in his positions. We’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Now this may surprise folks but the ACLU was against public financing, at least, against McCain-Feingold. Their point of opposition? First Amendment concerns. The Cato Institute has the same concerns.

This just happens to be the biggest concern with most conservatives. Why should I have to pay for someone else’s campaign? And why don’t I have the right to give as much as I want to the person whose belief’s most match mine?

James makes this point about full financing,

It will be fun to watch the state Legislature decide what is “full” funding of a political race. How many television commercials will each candidate be able to run? How many radio ads? How many mail pieces will they be able to send? Can they hire a campaign consultant, or will the court appoint someone?

We just had a congressional race in Waukesha with a candidate who paid himself a salary from his campaign fund. Will that be allowed in a fully funded state Supreme Court race?

And is the public ready for the costs? Look at what elections cost today? McCain-Feingold is largely ignored in the current presidential election because there’s no way you can run an election today on the money that McCain-Feingold limits you to.

The other thing that bothers those who are against public financing of campaigns is that the candidates have no incentive for making their case to the people other than gathering a few signatures and collecting a little money.

The example of this? John McCain. John McCain has made an impressive comeback. Do you remember where he was a couple of months ago? He had opted out of McCain-Feingold, but was running out of money, so he opted back in. Now at the end of this article, we see that he will opt out again.

The once-cash-strapped campaign of McCain is raising money at a faster clip, campaign manager Rick Davis told reporters. So far, the campaign has raised about $1 million and aides expect the victory in New Hampshire to increase the pace of fundraising.

McCain now is unlikely to accept federal matching funds, one adviser said, a decision that would severely hamper him through spring and summer if he were to become the party’s nominee.

Opting out of his own bill. Interesting.

Bill Richardson on Neil Cavuto today started to whine that he couldn’t get the financing his opponents did. And why is that? His message didn’t resonate.

Another reason? Loopholes. What else is there to say?

My conclusion? Better full disclosure than the alternatives. Fully disclose who gets money and who they get it from. Fully disclose who else spends money on the campaign.

Business abandons GOP for Democrats

This from Jeanne Cummings at Politico.com

All 10 of the top-giving industries tracked by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan money and politics watchdog group, are now donating more cash to Democrats than Republicans. A year ago, Republicans had the edge in six of the 10 sectors.

So now, not only is the Christian Right threatening to bolt, it appears business already has.

An obvious engine behind the shifting fortunes of the parties is the Democratic takeover of Congress. Businesses that ignored minority members for years are now trying to build relationships with the new power players.

But like the informercials on TV, “Wait, there’s more.”

But there’s more at work here. In many ways, Republicans have nobody but themselves to blame for turning the mutually beneficial and philosophically aligned relationship between corporations and GOP caucuses into little more than a transactional one, easily discarded at first evidence of a market disruption.

Republican leaders threatened a freeze-out of business lobbyists who dared hire a Democrat or ignored the names on the leadership’s private hiring tip sheet.

Pay-to-play became the insider mantra during the Republican reign. But “extortion” was how many CEOs described the annual shakedowns by committee chairmen with jurisdiction over their industries.

How’s that old saying go? “Power corrupts, ….” Not to mention the fact that Republicans were living on old ideas, like the Democrats about 30 years ago.

But here’s a shocker,

No group expressed greater relief — privately and publicly — than the business community when the 2002 McCain-Feingold law banning unlimited corporate donations to politicians became law. [Emphasis mine]

Hmmm. Wonder why?

“But there’s still more.” Health care costs, “Sarbanes-Oxley law, a cumbersome set of new rules imposed on corporations after a spate of their own scandals,” scandals, hypocrisy, and,

Corporate chieftains disciplined in monitoring the bottom line witnessed Republican committee chairmen spending like divas on new government programs and earmarks.

Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, what conservatives are left in the GOP? But the surprises aren’t over.

And, even today, the White House and several Republican presidential candidates appear willing to try to boost their own political standing with their law-and-order ranks at the expense of their corporate allies.

Exhibit A: Leading Republicans argue a key way to solve the nation’s illegal immigration problem is to make business owners face prison time unless they can verify their employees are legal.

Just last week the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined with the ACLU to win a court order preventing the Bush administration from implementing a program that would subject farmers, landscapers, hoteliers and builders to fines and prison sentences if they can’t or won’t affirm the legal status of their employees.

The CoC and the ACLU together? Has this happened before. Probably, but not too often, I bet.

There’s some numbers at the end of the article, but I won’t put them here.

Will K Street become Democratic? Or has it already?