Common Cause Blog

Philadelphia call for Clean Elections

Adam Bonin writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the need, despite a hostile Supreme Court, for public funding systems throughout the country.

The majority's rationale rested on the notion that leveling electoral opportunities for less-wealthy candidates was not a legitimate government objective. That's a shame, because the smalldonor revolution that propelled Obama's presidential campaign has not yet reached the state or local levels.

To reform this system, states such as Arizona, Connecticut and Maine have implemented innovative methods to allow candidates to receive a public grant that covers campaign costs in exchange for forgoing private fund-raising.

In order to ensure a fair contest, candidates participating in the system can receive additional grants if their non-participating rivals or outside groups supporting them end up spending funds in excess of the public grant.

The result: a legislature that is more economically diverse than one that proceeded it - with diner waitresses and social workers now joining chambers once reserved for the well-connected - and one that is not beholden to special interests or entrenched wealth.

More on that topic: the New York Times praised the high participation from candidates in the newly-created Connecticut public funding system, which goes into effect this year. Over 65% of candidates have opted in, and more may join them -- only 10 out of over 300 candidates have said they won't be running publicly-funded.

Public financing encourages good governance as well as competition. Government is cleaner when lawmakers are not beholden to special interests and are free to spend their energy meeting the needs of the people who matter -- those who elected them.

Connecticut, which became known as "Corrupticut" after the recent scandals, can only benefit from this new system.

We'll save transparency for next year

The Washington Independent takes a look at the absurdity that is the U.S. Senate's continuing to file paper campaign finance reports, largely thanks to Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) blocking the bill that would make report filing electronic.

It doesn't have to be this way. The House moved to mandatory electronic filing at the start of 2001. The Senate was exempt at the time (and remains so) because that law applied only to those filing directly with the FEC. (The Senate, recall, files first to the Sec. of the Senate.) Searchable House records are available online almost immediately after members file.

Some people just really liked the 20th century and don't want it to end, I guess.

How much to meet with Cheney?

About $250,000, apparently. The Times of London did an undercover investigation into prominent Republican fundraiser Stephen Payne.

They caught Payne on video saying that, in exchange for a contribution of $250,000 to the Bush presidential library fund, he could help coordinate this "former President" of a central Asian country (actually an undercover agent working for the paper) meeting with Vice President Cheney and perhaps Secretary of State Rice. (emphasis mine)

During an undercover investigation by The Sunday Times, Payne was asked to arrange meetings in Washington for an exiled former central Asian president. He outlined the cost of facilitating such access.

"The exact budget I will come up with, but it will be somewhere between $600,000 and $750,000, with about a third of it going directly to the Bush library," said Payne, who sits on the US homeland security advisory council.

Lunsford should sign Voters First Pledge

Bruce Lunsford, Democratic Senate candidate from Kentucky, wrote himself a $1 million check the day after the Supreme Court struck down the so-called Millionaire's Amendment of BCRA.

That's the way the system works -- kinda rotten for average non-wealthy folks, which is most of us, but that's the way it is. For now.

Lunsford should make clear that he's not about keeping it that way, with the Senate resembling an elite country club, and he should sign the Voters First Pledge in support of public financing for Congress. A tip of the cap to our friends at Campaign Money Watch for sending Lunsford a letter telling him to do so.

Back to bundling

The New York Times calls out the Obama campaign's recent pursuit of Hillary Clinton's biggest bundlers as a demonstration that while the small donor surge is terrific, it does not replace public financing in large part because it means that lots of cash is coming from wealthy donors, too.

Senator Obama is scheduled to meet Thursday with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her platinum card money raisers. One group specialized in amassing $250,000 packages for the campaign, while another excelled at hitting $1 million jackpots.

The voters should not be fooled. They must demand that both candidates explain how they will reform the campaign-finance system so no future candidate has any excuse for going into hock to the bundlers and their special-interest donors.

What we've been saying all along.

Update: Worth noting that last week USA Today criticized Obama's decision to opt out of public funding, but also published Obama's response in which he said, "The decision not to participate in the public financing system wasn't an easy one � especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," and "I am firmly committed to reforming the system as president, so that it's viable in today's campaign climate." That's great, but he needs to keep saying that, not just in one response column but in campaigning throughout the country.

Passing Ethics Where it Counts - Connecticut Steps Up to the Plate

Imagine getting a note from your bosses' go to guy requesting a donation - to a favorite charity, to the bosses' bonus fund, to his or her kid's school. The note said, "You'd better pony up for this!" What would you do? Well, in all likelihood, you would whip out your checkbook and start writing. In this economic climate especially, no one wants to put their job in jeopardy.

But how would it make you feel? Somewhat used, I imagine. Perhaps resentful. What if your boss was an elected official, and the chief of staff was hitting you up for a contribution to the bosses' campaign fund? You can't say no and expect to get a good job review ever again, and your boss gets a guaranteed flow of funds into his or her campaign coffers. Oh well, that's the way the game is played, right?

Want a low low rate on your mortgage? Keep your credit rating good... or just be a Senator

With the housing crisis leading our economy into a swoon, it has been an ugly year for U.S. homeowners and an unfortunate introduction into the practices of mortgage lenders like Countrywide Financial, the poster child for pushing "subprime" loans that have ultimately put over a million homes at risk of foreclosure.

We documented how the mortgage lending industry appeared to buy off Congress with $210 million in lobbying and campaign contributions, leading to inaction on the subprime lending situation until it became a crisis too big to ignore.

Things appear even sleazier today after Portfolio.com investigated Countrywide and found that at least two U.S. Senators received favorable loan deals, worth several thousand dollars if not tens of thousands, as yet another example of how the industry curried favor with leaders in Congress.