I'm cross posting a piece here on small donors, which I worked with our president Bob Edgar to put together, looking at the trends in small donor giving this cycle for presidential and congressional candidates -- the two are very different -- and how that impacts our work to limit big money's role and engage more people in our political system.

Check it out below the fold.

It appears that the National Association of Home Builders, which made headlines in February for refusing to give any more campaign contributions because, NAHB whined, Congress wasn't giving them what they wanted, has now gone back to making campaign contributions.

It says something that the other powerful interest groups are upset at NAHB for making it so obvious that they expect favors when they give campaign contributions.

I, for one, am just relieved that BUILD-PAC -- a lobbying group with over $2 million in the bank and "one of the biggest corporate donors to campaigns" -- had finally had its voice heard.  Thank goodness.  Back to business as usual, ahem.

(hat tip TPM)

From the Politico:


Double givers, as we call them, are perhaps the best example of how money talks in Washington. You may spend a career in Congress throwing bombs at the other side, but once you become a lobbyist and need to deliver for your clients, all that is history.

So, if you haven't heard, the Senate has voted in favor of the Department of Justice conducting an investigation of Alaska Congressman Don Young for mysteriously inserting a provision into a piece of legislation AFTER it had passed the House and Senate but before the President had signed it.

The provision would have widening an interchange at Coconut Road and Florida's I-75 -- an interchange that would have been helpful to a developer who'd held a fundraiser for Young shortly before the earmark was inserted.

The House has not voted on this yet, but probably will soon.

It is certainly an unfortunate and scare precedent to have a member of Congress insert changes to a bill after it has already been passed. It also seems a commentary on the level of `favoring' that goes on in Congress to benefit campaign contributors.

It's not like we couldn't find some other way to spend the money on infrastructure, like some new bridges, say.

Check out the latest MobLogic episode on the mountains of campaign contributions collected by Obama, Clinton, and McCain.

They keep it light hearted, but it's excellent to see coverage of the money -- not just how much, but where it comes from, and whether that's good for democracy or not. That's not a rhetorical question. More small donors getting involved is a great development, but it's not clear how permanent and widespread the trend is. I'll be taking a closer look at those trends and campaign finance policies and posting some notes on that in the upcoming week.

I know you've all been missing your somewhat regular dose of information on what Common Cause has been working on across the country at the local, state and national level.  Here's the latest edition of the Yellow Memo (as it's known in the CC office - it has been printed on yellow paper for as long as anyone remembers).  Thanks to volunteer Mary Jo Cittadino we've got the memo back up and running.  In future it'll mostly be posted under her name, but I wanted to introduce it this time.  Enjoy! 

House Administration Committee Approve Bills

On April 2 the Committee on House Administration approved two vital measures: The Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008 (HR 5036) will help states safeguard voting machines in November's general election. The Universal Right to Vote By Mail (HR 281) will ease administrative hurdles for voters who wish to vote by absentee ballot. The bill clarifies that voters may request the right to vote by absentee ballot without needing to give an "excuse."

Common Cause has championed both measures since their introduction. In a press release, President Bob Edgar commended "those on the House Administration Committee who voted in support of these measures" and urged "the full House and Senate to follow suit to help ensure voting security and accessibility in November."

More below the fold.

With a lot of excitement over the outpouring of support from small donors for the leading presidential candidates in the last few months, Laura MacCleery of the Brennan Center for Justice analyzed the "small donor revolution" today in Roll Call (subscription req'd, so I'll paste a bunch of her column below the fold).

She does a fine job articulating the difference between an influx in presidential campaign donations over the last few months and the continued reliance of Congress -- and, generally, the presidential campaigns -- on wealthy donors, while pointing out the importance of contribution limits in the current system and in an ideal public financing system in the future.

North Carolina passed a full public financing system for judicial candidates in 2002, then expanded the law last year to certain statewide (Council of State) offices.  Having statewide elected officers run using public funds is a nice idea in a vacuum, but the big question is, will candidates choose that option?

In fact, we'd already heard the answer: yes.  In the past two cycles, 2004 and 2006, 20 out of 28 judicial candidates in NC ran with public funds.  Now, we're hearing it again: they want in.  The coalition announced that an "overwhelming majority" of eligible North Carolina candidates will indeed use the system this cycle; a quick look over the list and a brushing off of my old math skills (in this case, addition) shows that 22 out of the 27 have filed to use public funds in 2008.  More than 80%.

Voters like it, candidates like it.  It's common sense.