ByJosh Zaharoff Posted on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:50:06 PM EST
After months without a functioning FEC, as we called on Senate leadership to find suitable nominees and re-constitute the important -- if often ineffectual -- commission in time for the peak of election season, this week it looked like we might have caught a break. Sen. Harry Reid's office spoke with the White House, and the White House sent six FEC nominations (three D, three R) to the Senate.
How quickly hopes can crumble.
We've recently heard that Sen. Mitch McConnell is poised to insist on a package deal -- all or none -- rather than allowing each nominee to get an up or down vote.
This is an unworkable proposal, not unexpected from McConnell, a bitter opponent to all campaign finance regulation. First, the choice of nominees reflects a remarkably partisan and subversive intention towards the FEC, in particular the selection of Hans von Spakovsky and Donald McGhan and the removal of current chairman David Mason from the list. CC Prez Bob Edgar sent this letter to the entire U.S. Senate on Wednesday. Here's part of his beef:
We continue to oppose the White House's choice of Hans von Spakovsky to the FEC and urge Senators to vote against his confirmation.
We also oppose the nomination of Donald McGhan to the FEC. McGhan served as counsel to former Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX) on matters of campaign finance reform and ethics. As you know, Mr. Delay was indicted on campaign finance violations by the U.S. Attorney's office in Texas and was admonished repeatedly by the House Commission of Official Standards of Conduct. It would be difficult to find a more ill-suited candidate.
The subject of stripping Mason's name off the list brought back memories of a similar purge in Common Cause's early days, however, and is in some ways the most egregious piece of this whole maneuver.
ByJosh Zaharoff Posted on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:58:46 AM EST
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.
The office of the official responsible for protecting federal workers from political interference was raided by F.B.I. agents on Tuesday as part of an investigation into whether he himself mixed politics with official business.
ByJosh Zaharoff Posted on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:00:40 PM EST
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.
The association's political action committee, BUILD-PAC, voted unanimously to start giving out money again late last week. A top BUILD-PAC official, Ed Brady, said, "Our message has been heard."
So far this election cycle, BUILD-PAC has raised more $3 million, distributed more than $1.4 million and has about $2 million available to dispense.
Many K Street lobbyists, however, were not pleased that the association had stopped giving out money. The decision showed how closely interest groups tie their donations to the actions they hope lawmakers will take on their behalf -- a connection lobbyists do not want to flaunt for fear of legal and political repercussions.
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.
ByJosh Zaharoff Posted on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:30:30 PM EST
I'm usually the money-in-politics guy, but I can't resist. Add me to the list of somany observers who found last night's Democratic debate a grotesque affront to productive political discourse. I won't go into the details; the whole thing, on the eve of a critical primary in what has been a remarkable, impassioned, inspiring presidential season, was devoid of almost any discussion of issues that Americans care about and that affect people across the country: health care; our foreign policy; the economy and the housing crisis; etc. Instead we were served warmed-over "gotcha" questions that were tired fare to begin with: a pin on your lapel, he-said she-said, nonsense.
It's fitting, then, that Katie's post below highlights Democracy Now! and, more broadly, the need for a diversity of voices in our media.
If there's one thing last night's debate showed, it wasn't about either candidate, it was that we need more voices in our media because the ones we've got sure aren't doing the job and our whole democracy suffers for it.
ByJosh Zaharoff Posted on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:14:03 PM EST
The big public financing bill failed in Maryland this session under relentless opposition from the Senate President, Mike Miller. But a bill to give Montgomery County permission to enact Clean Elections also failed, despite no public opposition whatsoever. The Washington Post today condemned this mysterious and disappointing fate:
Practically every delegate and state senator from the county itself backed the bill, which would have established a voluntary system of public financing for qualifying candidates for county executive and the nine seats on the County Council. No lawmaker in either chamber of the Maryland General Assembly publicly opposed it. In the House of Delegates, the measure sailed to passage by a vote of 137 to 0.
In the Senate, where the bill was assigned to the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, a single witness testified on the bill (council member Phil Andrews), explaining its merits and encountering nothing but favorable reactions from the senators who were present. And then, mysteriously, the bill never came up for a vote. Call it death by silence. (A similar bill to establish a statewide system of public financing for elections also died in the legislature, for at least the sixth time in the last decade.)
It's unclear who administered the coup de grace to the Montgomery bill. Some suspect Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert), an opponent of campaign finance reform at the state level -- but he denies it. Perhaps it was the committee chair, Sen. Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore), who didn't return our phone call. If so, she didn't tip her hand to other members of her committee.
ByJosh Zaharoff Posted on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:31:29 PM EST
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.
Common Blog
