CCP
Fact versus Narrative
By Luke WachobWe were pleased to see The New York Times recently acknowledge that campaign spending in the 2014 election cycle declined from spending in the previous midterm – the 2010 election cycle. It’s an important fact that challenges the dominant narrative of money growing ever larger and more pervasive in American democracy and invites us to think deeper about the intersection of influence, elections, and wealth.Unfortunately, not everyone will take that invitation. Media Matters for America, an organization that is heavily invested in the narrative of money buying votes, is now attacking the Times for daring to publicize the inconvenient truth of declining campaign spending. MMFA lashes out at the Grey Lady in a blog post that bizarrely accuses the Times of “downplay[ing] the influence of money in politics,” a charge which is sure to tickle CCP followers familiar with the Times’ history ofoverstating the amount of money spent on campaigns and its effects. In short, MMFA complains that the Times’ reporting “obscures the especially outsized role large donors have in elections and downplays the proportion of large donations to overall campaign spending,” that it “glossed over the record spending made by outside groups in the 2014 midterms,” and that, “[m]ost egregiously, [the author] failed to note the role of dark money in elections.”In other words, the Times is being scolded for deviating from the speech police lobby’s script on money in politics.
Campaign Finance
Daily Caller: The Tea Party Is Wrong About The Cromnibus Campaign Finance Rider
By Paul H. JosseyCrafty congressional negotiators inserted deep into the ‘Crominubus’ a campaign finance rider designed to strengthen the political parties. The measure expanded the number of national party accounts and raised the biennial maximum contribution to over $1.5 million. Campaign finance reformers reacted with predictable hyperbole. Democracy 21’s Fred Wertheimer declared it “the most destructive and corrupting campaign finance provisions ever enacted by Congress.”Henny Penny-ism lubricates fundraising. But reformers gained an unexpected vocalist in their overwrought chorus of condemnation. Tea Party groups complained more powerful parties would stifle their insurgent challengers. Their apprehension is misplaced. Tea Party candidates should look within their own ranks, not the weakened parties, to explain their electoral failures.The groups evoked their own brand of fundraising-friendly embellishment when describing the rider. David Bossie of Citizens United said it will “strengthen the Washington establishment in both parties and not create a level playing field for candidates who are outside the beltway.” Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli of Senate Conservatives Fund struck a similar tone: “The new limits . . . increase political speech for party insiders while silencing the majority of Americans who are fed up with Washington.”Both miss the mark.
More Soft Money Hard Law: Perspectives on Campaign Finance Reform in the Next Phase
By Bob BauerThe Washington Post sensibly suggests that campaign finance reform policy must be recast and that this a job for Congress. The paper’s perspective on the current state of affairs is bleak. Post editors are unhappy with the permissive rulings of the Supreme Court and about the expanded realm of what is often, usually imprecisely, referred to as “dark money.” But their emphasis is on “new ways” to improve the law and its enforcement. They suggest a focus on transparency and they call on Republicans who will soon control the Congress to reconsider their reversal on disclosure policies.At least we could have that discussion and will be far better than, for example, more of the same quarrels about what the Federal Election Commission can accomplish on its own. The answer to that is: not much. Division on the Commission gets the most attention but it is only part of the problem. The agency is working with rules largely designed in the 1970s that are poorly matched to contemporary realities, including contemporary political practice and a transformed constitutional jurisprudence. The advantage in this day and age on close or contested questions lies with the spender, not the regulator.
Washington Post: Why we still need to worry about money in politics
By Lee DrutmanAppelbaum also pushes back against two other pieces of conventional wisdom. The first is the idea that there is too much money in politics. He notes that we spent more on almonds in the past year than we did in the 2014 election ($3.7 billion). Appelbaum also suggests that if politics were such a good investment, companies would be spending even more money. Applebaum interviews political scientist Timothy Groseclose, who tells him: “If companies thought they could just buy politicians, we should see much more money being spent there.” Stephen Ansolabehere and colleagues reach a similar conclusion in another article that Appelbaum cites.The second is the idea that money “buys” a politician. Appelbaum argues that there are few examples of true quid pro quo corruption.Both arguments miss the point. For one, they misunderstand how corporations make decisions about politics. As I show my forthcoming book, “The Business of America is Lobbying,” no corporate executive actually expects to “buy” a politician. Corporations are investing in relationships, and campaign contributions are signals of friendship. As one lobbyist for a large corporation told me, contributions are a way of showing “respect for the process.” Corporate actors have almost always tried to be bipartisan in their campaign contributions, and, although some industries favor one party more than another, the goal is generally to have more friends than enemies.
Kochs Obsession
Politico: David Koch: ‘A social liberal’
By Trevor Eischen“You have given money to all of these different hospitals, universities, different schools and so forth. Yet there are people would call you an evil billionaire. Why?” Walters said.“Well, I don’t understand that,” Koch answered.Walters asked Koch to explain his political views, stating that he’s “not well-liked” because of his “very conservative politics.”“Well, I’m basically a libertarian,” Koch said. “I’m a conservative on economic matters, and I’m a social liberal.”
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Roll Call: New Governing Coalition Emerges
By Steven Dennis, Niels Lesniewski, and Humberto SanchezIn the wake of the “cromnibus,” a new governing coalition may have emerged in Washington.For the first time in eight years, it doesn’t necessarily include Nancy Pelosi.It does include Steny H. Hoyer.The coalition doesn’t seem to need Sens. Ted Cruz, Elizabeth Warren or Jeff Sessions.But it does need the more moderate wing of Democrats personified by Hoyer, the minority whip, who helped pass the compromise forged by Speaker John A. Boehner, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell with appropriators Harold Rogers and Barbara A. Mikulski, among others.
State and Local
Illinois –– Chicago Tribune: Illinois should dump campaign donation limits
By Eric ZornOn Oct. 13, conservative gadfly and mayoral hopeful William Kelly filed paperwork with the Illinois State Board of Elections disclosing that he’d lent his campaign fund — Friends of William J. Kelly — the generous sum of $100,000.It seemed futile and extravagant. No one gave Kelly any chance against incumbent Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his campaign was all but inert: The quarterly report he’d filed at the end of September listed no contributions of any kind and only $1,200 in expenses, paid to Kelly’s own company.But, in accordance with state law, the loan was just large enough to lift the cap on outside donations in the mayor’s race.That law, designed to limit the power of self-funded candidates, says that the moment a pol puts $100,000 of his or her own money into a local race (or $250,000 into a statewide race), the $5,300 individual contribution limit no longer applies to any of the candidates in that race.
New York –– AP: Cuomo wants reforms before legislators get raises
ALBANY, N.Y. — There is no deal on a pay raise for state lawmakers because they haven’t agreed to a series of campaign finance and ethics reforms, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Monday.Lawmakers have suggested returning to Albany for a lame-duck session this month to give themselves a raise. They now make $79,500 for their part-time work but haven’t seen a raise in 14 years.Cuomo said Monday on public radio’s “Capitol Pressroom” that any pay increase should be accompanied by campaign finance and ethics changes. Specifically, the Democratic governor has suggested limiting lawmakers’ outside income, prohibiting them from doing work for groups that do business with the state and instituting a broad public campaign finance system.
Wisconsin –– Wisconsin Reporter: Audit: GAB has failed to follow the law
By M.D. KittleRecently, attorneys in a state lawsuit suggested that the GAB may have altered documents related to their contracted employees involved in the sweeping John Doe into 29 conservative organizations. While a judge’s ruling has stalled the probe, the conservative plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking the public release of hundreds of documents on the accountability board’s activities.That information is expected to include financial activity the GAB would not release to the Legislature or the Legislative Audit Bureau, citing strict confidentiality constraints infused into the 2007 law that created the GAB. Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen earlier this year backed up the board, giving the GAB cover to keep just about anything and everything related to its involvement in the John Doe probe out of the public eye.The audit bureau describes a staff that deals in secrets, even keeping them from their bosses, the retired judges who make up the board.
