Growing discomfort in Congress with the private financing arms race
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:32:12 PM EST
(Psst! We're raising money right now to Get it Straight in 2008, so please chip in! Here's one of many reasons why...)
The big scandal news yesterday was Brent Wilkes, the lobbyist who "engineered the biggest bribery scheme in congressional history" with former Rep. Duke Cunningham, getting convicted on a perfect 13-for-13 counts of conspiracy, bribery, money laundering and wire fraud.
Cunningham and Wilkes are despicable characters who defrauded taxpayers for personal gain. They're not the norm, at least not in my view, but they help make the case for full public financing of Congressional races as in the Fair Elections Now Act.
But what's more important in the long run is the fact that regular members of Congress, the majority of whom intend to serve the public interest (unlike Cunningham), are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the current campaign finance regime and its demands of almost nonstop fundraising. As it gets worse, which it will, the case for public financing gets better.
I mostly look at this from an outsider's perspective, but after a couple meetings with members of Congress recently, I think it's worth exploring the promise of these changes among insiders, particularly the members of Congress themselves.
One element of discomfort for Members is that they're expected to literally raise millions of dollars every two years, which means constantly worrying about fundraising--which competes not only with lawmaking, but also family, leisure, and sleep. (Remember Bill Clinton's theory that sleep deprivation is what's ruining Washington? Kinda funny, but perhaps kinda true.) I still find it appalling--yet clearly the norm--that freshmen Congressmen in 2006 were given a $1 million homework assignment before serving a day in Congress.
"'Start raising money now,'" Mr. Walz said Mr. Emanuel told him. "'And here's your goal. Have $1 million in the bank by the time this race gets ready next time.'"
That's a lot of pressure on the folks who are supposed to deal with health care, public education, global warming, the war in Iraq, etc, etc.
But they're also trapped as public perception of Congress shifts increasingly to "they're all corrupt" and media coverage of bundling and other fundraising practices increases. Here's the trap:
--Each member needs to raise hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, and needs allies to help him/her do that
--If an ally does help them raise money, either by bundling or by holding an event, that must be disclosed
--If at any point they cast a vote that helps that industry or that particular person's company, they expose themselves to accusations of corruption
--The other option is typically to raise less, or spend more time fundraising, neither of which is appealing nor viable in many cases
This is not to excuse the shady practices and outright corruption that Cunningham and others have exhibited. It's great to have full disclosure of campaign finances. But as the whole fundraising arms race accelerates with each election season, the case for public financing gets stronger because lawmakers don't enjoy dialing for dollars and fear the perception of corruption in the eyes of the public--even those who are obeying the law and simply trying to win reelection.
It feels like a perfect storm is brewing for public financing and the Fair Elections Now Act, and I think we'll see a further uptick in momentum in the coming year in the House, Senate, and around the country to pass this reform.
Tags: money in politics, public financing, clean elections, fair elections now act, duke cunningham, brent wilkes (all tags)
You are not logged in.
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.
