Blog

McCain's non-existent "reform" voters

Published on December 5, 2008
by Sean Parnell

File Under: "Clean" Elections, Faulty Assumptions, Taxpayer Financing

Karl Rove, former campaign guru for President George W. Bush and a pretty sharp guy, had some astute observations in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about the role of money in the McCain-Obama contest. A few highlights:

 Between [May 31] and Oct. 15, the Obama/DNC juggernaut raised $658.7 million. I estimate... Mr. Obama, the DNC and two other Obama fund-raising vehicles raised an additional $120 million to $140 million in October and November, giving them a total of between $827 million and $847 million in funds for the general election.

Mr. McCain and the RNC spent $550 million in the general election, including the $84 million in public financing...

To read more about McCain's disastrous decision to take taxpayer funds, click on the headline above

What a difference winning makes...

Published on December 4, 2008
by Reid Cox

File Under: Expenditure, Faulty Assumptions

It's funny how winning an election with the help of a record amount of campaign cash can cause the winners to reevaluate the role of money in politics. For so long, the constant drumbeat heard from the so-called "reform" community has been that America needs to limit the amount being spent on politics for no apparent reason other than their continuing belief that "money is the root of all evil." But that storyline is hard for the "reformers" to reconcile with this year's presidential election.

Barack Obama wasn't, and isn't, the picture of evil the "reformers" have always painted in their campaign to get money out of politics. Obama was one of them -- a community organizer who got involved in the system to bring "change we can believe in" -- or at least that's the narrative that was told on the campaign trail.

But in selling himself and his politics to the voters, Obama raised and spent record amounts of money, and did so after rejecting limits on campaign spending by turning down public financing. In other words, the candidate admired by the "reform" community not only refused to adhere to their principle but flouted it by elevating the campaign finance bar to new heights.

As Arizona legislator Gary Sherman acknowledged in a column less than three weeks after President-elect Obama's win: "We have come to think of campaign money as inherently corrupting. Now we are faced with a dilemma."

To read more about the "reform" dilemma and their answer, click the headline.

Fairness Doctrine and the Obama Transition

Published on December 3, 2008
by Jeff Patch

File Under: Fairness Doctrine

Some left-leaning activists and politicians have openly declared support for reviving the Fairness Doctrine, a draconian speech restriction dismantled over 20 years ago. President-elect Obama has said he does not support reviving the Fairness Doctrine through legislative action. However, Obama's FCC appointees could use FCC regulations to achieve similar goals of Fairness Doctrine supporters.

David Rittgers posted an extensive background and look-ahead on the Fairness Doctrine at the Cato Institute's blog and conservative bloggers are debating how Congress and the executive branch might approach the issue. Blogs on the left are muted and split on the Fairness Doctrine. The Internet was used as a powerful communication and organization tool by Obama and Democrats in the election, and there's not widespread concern among progressive activists that they are voiceless (compared to concerns on the left about talk radio a decade ago).

to read more, click the headline above

More evidence why "clean elections" won't work

Published on December 2, 2008
by Sean Parnell

File Under: "Clean" Elections, Faulty Assumptions, Taxpayer Financing

North Carolina is among the handful of states that have experimented with taxpayer-funded political campaigns, also called "clean elections" by so-called campaign finance "reformers." This past weekend the News & Observer of the Raleigh-Durham area ran an interesting article demonstrating the utter futility of "clean elections" as a way to eliminate or even noticeably reduce the influence of organized interest groups.

From the article:

Organized labor took a risk this year, pouring money and manpower into campaigns in North Carolina, traditionally one of the most anti-union states in the country.

But the gamble appears to be paying off, with labor playing a role in the election of such Democratic allies as U.S. Sen.-elect Kay Hagan, Gov.-elect Beverly Perdue, U.S. Rep.-elect Larry Kissell and helping carry the state for President-elect Barack Obama.

Now union leaders hope to translate success at the polls to victories in the halls of Congress and the state legislature...

A 1959 state law... forbids public bodies from engaging in collective bargaining.

Labor or labor-related groups poured at least $4.7 million into this year's campaigns for state office in North Carolina -- more than double their 2004 spending, according to campaign finance records.

There were at least 1,000 union members on the ground in North Carolina, knocking on doors, manning phone banks and distributing literature at plant gates, according to labor leaders...

To read more about how unions supported their favored candidates without contributing directly to them, click the headline above.

Bad ideas are fashionable in the Garden State

Published on December 1, 2008
by Sean Parnell

File Under: Contributions & Limits

Earlier this year, the Center for Competitive Politics helped to educate legislators, the media, and citizens in New Jersey about the failure and danger of taxpayer-funded political campaigns, also known as "clean elections." Our efforts were largely successful, with Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts pulling the bill in early September.

The "clean elections" program in New Jersey was largely driven by Democrats, with a few Republicans joining to support it. Proving that both parties in New Jersey wear their Bad Idea Jeans proudly, New Jersey Senate Republican Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. is calling for tougher "ethics" legislation that seeks to limit the speech of Garden State residents who speak through so-called "special interest" groups or with the help of wealthy citizens.

To read more, click the headline above

New communications manager joins CCP!

Published on December 1, 2008
by Sean Parnell

File Under: Other

CCP is pleased today to announce that Jeff Patch has joined us as our new communications manager. Jeff previously worked as a reporter with Politico, press secretary for Iowa Congressman Tom Latham, and a reporter for the Des Moines Register and the Telegraph-Herald in Dubuque, Iowa. You can read CCP's press release here:  Patch Press Release

Welcome aboard, Jeff!

Big Contributor/Small Contributor

Published on November 28, 2008
by Brad Smith

File Under: Contributions & Limits, Taxpayer Financing

Barack Obama's fundraising prowess has been much discussed of late.  One question discussed is whether President-Elect Obama, by foregoing government funding of his campaign, betrayed his own stated principles in favor of tax funding of campaigns.

Many of Obama's supporters have justified his decision to rely on voluntary contributions rather than taxpayer subsidies by arguing that the Obama campaign was different.  It was a new type of "public financing," by  bringing in millions of small contributors, so Obama was still not beholden to special interests.  This is a nice dance tune, but it's not entirely true: yes, Obama did bring in unprecedented numbers of new donors, and did raise unprecedented amounts in small contributions, but he also raised unprecedented amounts in large contributions, at least as those have typically been defined in the field of campaign finance law, and his percentage of small donations is not much different than that of George W. Bush in his two presidential runs. 

But wait a minute: does the concept of "large donors" and "small donors" make any sense under the current campaign finance contribution limits?  And if it does not, can those limits be constitutionally justified at all? 

Click the headline for more...

Clean Governor/Dirty Governor?

Published on November 26, 2008
by Sean Parnell

File Under: "Clean" Elections, Taxpayer Financing

The name of Janet Napolitano, currently Governor of Arizona, has been circulated as a possible selection to head the Department of Homeland Security in the incoming Obama Administration. Governor Napolitano, of course, was a "clean elections" candidate, rejecting voluntary contributions from private citizens in favor of taxpayer dollars.

As a two-time "clean elections" candidate, Governor Napolitano of course has a long record of positive statements about the benefits of putting politicians on the dole. Here's one example:

"...special interests had nothing to hold over me. I was lobbied heavily by all sides of [the prescription drug] issue. But I was able to create this program based on one and only one variable: the best interests of Arizona's senior citizens... I think we all share an ideal vision in which elected officials come to their capitols free of the encumbrances of special interests."

            Web site of Public Campaign

Apparently, however, Governor Napolitano isn't quite the anti-private-money-in-politics devotee that some might have thought. From an AP article written just the other day:

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, President-elect Barack Obama's top pick for Homeland Security secretary, heads a fundraising committee that collected thousands of dollars from special interests and gave money to Democratic House campaigns nationwide for the fall elections.

To read more about "Clean" Governor Napolitano's "dirty" money, click the headline above

Nutmeg state shortchanged in effort to get money out of politics

Published on November 25, 2008
by Sean Parnell

File Under: "Clean" Elections, Taxpayer Financing

Taxpayer-funded political campaigns, also known as "clean elections" or "voter-owned elections," are supposed to be the next wave of campaign finance "reform," judging from the excitement and energy focused on these schemes from the "reform" community. Plying politicians with taxpayer cash is supposed to reduce campaign costs, end corruption, level the playing field, and generally put "the people" back in charge.

With their customary rhetorical restraint, "reformers" stop just short of promising that so-called "clean elections" will, to borrow from P.J. O'Rourke, "make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn." I think I did hear them promise that shoveling taxpayer dollars into candidates' campaign coffers would lead to a "puppy in every pot and a car in every garage" (I may have gotten the quote a little off, it may not have been a car).

Anyway, the state of Connecticut was the latest to be roped into this scam, offering welfare for politicians through a "clean elections" program for the first time in 2008. For your reading pleasure, the following is a letter to the editor in the Stamford Advocate reporting on the entirely predictable shortcomings and failures of "clean elections."

To the editor:

During this past election cycle, a total of $4.2 million in taxpayer dollars were spent on state Senate races alone. The campaign finance reform law was intended to make races competitive, which was achieved in less than a third of all races. Only 11 of 36 total races were decided by a vote margin under 60 percent... The final result was that only one seat changed parties, a seat which was expected to change, with or without campaign finance laws.

The most disturbing aspect to the new campaign finance laws is that they allow candidates facing no opponent to collect funds at the expense of taxpayers... state Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford did [this] when he collected $24,000. Four other colleagues, including the Senate majority leader, collected a total of $105,000 to prop up their image absent a general election challenger.

...State Senator Toni Harp of New Haven... had a mediocre challenger, she was entitled to collected $85,000 in taxpayer dollars, which she did. Her race concluded with her taking 90 percent of the vote...

If this is the reform that the state legislature promised, then we have been shortchanged greatly...

Ralph D'Angelo

Stamford

I can't  add much to that...

Early clues on Obama administration and the First Amendment

Published on November 24, 2008
by Sean Parnell

File Under: Enforcement, Internet Regulation, Lobbying Regulation

We at CCP are looking for early clues on what an Obama administration means for the First Amendment and the rights of citizens to freely speak out in politics and support the candidates and causes of their choice. Much to our delight, Obama seems to be abandoning his "lobbyists are bad" mantra from the campaign (reporting and carping about this here, here, and here, among other places), embracing not only experience (both good and bad, I suppose) but also the simple fact that lobbyists represent the vast and varied interests of the American public, and having done so should not be a bar to service in his administration.  

On the downside, however, are comments by Attorney General nominee Eric Holder on the subject of regulating speech on the internet. In the wake of the 1999 Columbine tragedy, Holder had this to say in an NPR interview:

"The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate - we tried with regard to pornography. It is going to be a difficult thing, but it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations on how people interact on the Internet that is something the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at."

At a time when the majority party in Congress is eagerly looking to enact "reasonable regulations" on who is allowed to speak over the airwaves, how much time they can speak, and on what topics they can speak, under the guise of "fairness" in talk radio, it can hardly be reassuring to find that the man likely to be the next Attorney General appears to look favorably on government control over online speech as well.

Previous 10 

Next 10