Money: the Necessary Evil in Politics!
Trying to keep the chipmunks from eating her tulips, my Grandma would say “shoe, shoe – go away!” That's what the Clinton Campaign is saying about “Hsu” the fundraiser whose story just won’t go away!
Last week one of Hillary’s largest fundraisers, Norman Hsu, was captured by authorities in Colorado after failing to appear at a bail hearing connected to a 1991 California warrant in connection with a grand theft charge. And last night after a day of testimony from General Patraeus, on the eve of continuing testimony in the Senate and the 6 year anniversary of 9-11…the Clinton campaign announced that they will be returning not only Hsu money but all the money he was able to “bundle” for them totaling a whopping $850,000 to the individual donors. This is the largest amount of money in fundraising history to be returned during a presidential campaign and not the record Senator Clinton and the Clinton Campaign were shooting for 4 months before the primaries. Will it hurt her in the end? I doubt it – but it is significant all the same and that is why the release from her team trickled out in the dark.
As it stands, the Clinton Team did identify the problem, they stated that they would give the money Hsu raised to charity and this week when they (and us outside the campaign) found out just how much money he brought in decided to give it all back! To prevent this from happening again, the Clinton team is putting into a place a criminal background check for large donors now moving forward – a good idea (John Edwards already does this). And honestly, they are not getting a ton of rebuff from fellow candidates – Republicans or Democrats because “he who throws the first stone…is probably going to get hit in the back!” Fundraising is a necessary beast! In politics, donors choose you – you don’t always choose them. Sure you court the party’s faithful wallets but not all wallets are from the faithful. Many donors give to more than one campaign to spread the joy (or as some would say influence) but when your dealing with the hundreds of millions of dollars...there is bound to be a rotten egg in there some where. Bad donors are not known to just one party – they are known to just one bad campaign finance system as a whole.
If you look hard enough in any candidate’s bank you are going to find a suspicious name or shady background but honestly until we change the system – these candidates and their staff find it hard to say no.
So what is it going to take to fix the problems of shady donors? Is it time for public financing of presidential campaigns? But in that case who set’s the amount levied on the taxpayers to finance these campaign? And what if the taxpayers aren’t for either Republicans or Democrats – can their tax dollars go to finance a libertarian or green party candidate? Could it be used to fund a socialist or communist? I know these are extremes I’m talking about but this would be no small undertaking.
I believe public financing could fix the system – but shouldn’t we fix our schools and health care system first with the taxpayer’s money? I question how it could be done – so I want to hear from you!
Do you think we should move to public financing of presidential campaigns?
Where would you draw the lines?
(For example – could you justify giving federal tax dollars to a Mike Gravel to finance his campaign?)
Thanks so much – I really look forward to this conversation about the Money: the Necessary Evil in Politics!
Laura
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 57
Public disclosure! You accept a campaign donation, you must post it on an election website with amount, donor, organization, address, and board of directors of your organization, then in one week, you can cash the check.
I don't care how much money you are getting, I just want to know who is giving you the money! So, if the huge public employee unions or the huge education labor unions or trial lawyers are giving you money, then I want to know it!
With all these made up "touchy feely" type names for interest groups and PACs, I want to know who runs these organizations and what they are about.
Just think of all the watchdogs on both sides of the aisle gleening the website for donors! Now that's a "sunshine law"!
Proof of point: The SEC forced more disclosure of CEO payouts, but the result of this was higher CEO pay--Why?--Because no company wanted to be the company with a low paid--and therefore perceived as second-rate CEO.
I'm torn on this issue because while I do see giving moey to a candidate as freedom of speach (which is why the Supreme court backed up a decision on this issue), it does run the risk of politicans pandering to their doners.
Since when have candidates not pandered to their donors? Think the unions want something in return? Increase in the minimum wage! Think the trial lawyers want something in return? Geeze, why haven'tt we seen torte reform in the courts!. And the list goes on.......................
There are bow many taxpayers out there? a billion? Then I suggest that ONE dollar be levied on our tax return. One billion dollars would be the limit of campaign funds, to be drawn upon equally. It would then be a finite number of money and they will have to 'budget' just like us working folks, to get the most bang for their buck.
"Where would you draw the lines?"
I used a pretty confining box, but it is equal to the chance they give the public to get by, so it's fair enough!
Grow up, people...parties are for birthdays!
County "Elections website for local elections. State Elections office for statewide offices, and a federal site for President and Vice President.
And limit PAC's. Let them exist, but prohibit them from advertising within 90 days or some other reasonable limit of election day. When you look at reforming Campaign Finance you have to consider municipal, county state and federal elections. Technically there is only one NATIONAL election, it is the Presidential one. But you have to take primaries into consideration, and you have to consider things like the chicanery of the Fred Thompson campaign. And the reporting has to be TIMELY
Remember the devil is in the details.
We discussed this before they did nothing wrong but follow the law.
I believe we should have good campaign finance reform - everyone should get an equal share from public coffers to run their campaign and it should be overseen by the GAO and special auditors. Think of all we could get done if reps didn't have to spend so much of their time out on the road, raising money from people even after they get elected. It's a colossal waste of time and tax payer money.
I wish people would look at it from that angle instead of not wanting to pay the $10 or so a year to fund a public coffer. I would much rather spend a couple of bucks a year if it means making the rich and powerful equal to the everyday person in representation in government AND about doubling the time my rep actually spends in Washington representing me.
Thanks so much for logging on – I have been running some numbers down – purely speculative and with the population of our country – let's use approximately 300million and let's say there are half that pay taxes – 150,000,000 if each was asked (or told) to contribute five dollars every four years that would be $750,000,000 plenty to run multiples campaigns for the Presidential nomination and the Presidency. So I think the money could be raised and would be a nominal fee for honesty in Presidential campaigns. But that is the easy part – the hard part I believe would be to discern who qualifies for the money and how they get to use it.
When you look at campaign expenditures from valet parking extra motorcade vehicles to feeding the campaign staff's and allowing room service – do we want our taxpayer money paying for that? Would there be two funds – one an operational fund and media budget given by the government and another fund for food and incidentals that they would still fundraise for so it wasn't out of tax payer's dollars?
I think public financing gets more complicated as we go along and perhaps to start – we should look to watch dog groups??
So many questions and so few answers!
Thanks for taking part in the conversation!
Laura
Thank you as always for coming back and joining in the conversation!
I think you make a strident point regarding public disclosure. Like we are seeing with earmarks in Congress with the new lobbying reform bill and the enacting of it – members of congress will have their earmark requests publicly disclosed. It both prevents unnecessary ones and embarrassing ones. Perhaps public disclosure – and not the type that is buried inside of the Federal Elections Commission would be helpful and prudent. As much as I'd like money taken out of the political campaign system – you just can't. Money is the necessary evil of politics until there is federal financing there will be no limits - money drives everything from fundraising itself, staff, policy, technology, advertising and when it gets down to it is behind every vote! But with that said, federal financing it is not my top priority personally with my taxes I pay the government when I see the needs for schools, health care and better protection and programs in our communities that we should get in order first - if the fiscal house of our country was currently in order I could see this but it isn't and therefore I don't believe in all reality at this time this can be enacted. Instead the best we can do now is recognize this for the necessary evil it is and look to independent watchdog groups to ride both parties to accept proper money.
Appreciate you commenting and love having you return!
Laura
That is what would be so hard about public financing – giving your $5 or whatever – knowing that both parties would benefit from it – not just your own…
That's why I would welcome additional public disclosure and an independent watchdog group like the General Accounting Office on the Hill.
Thanks so much for being a part of the conversation.
Laura
I know a lot of conversation here has been about the folks that are running and amassing a ton of money and how federal financing would keep them in check….but I want to offer another argument to the base of this topic. Federal financing would also allow those community leaders and perhaps former Generals and teachers that could be great Presidents the opportunity to run. Perhaps right now the Presidency is open only to those that are rich or well connected. Bill Clintons having been in public office all his life never had much money until after the White House but he is charismatic and well connected and then you've got Mitt Romney who is wealthy beyond belief and has donated millions to his own campaign. So would federal financing allow others who never had the opportunity but are more then qualified the chance to run and make a difference?
Instead of looking to whop this would police – it's also interesting
Thank you!
Thank you!
All campaign contributions should be limited to one donation per year and $2000. Just think the number of ads would diminish to a tolerable level and no candidate could be beholden to such an non-influential amount. But alas this is the United States where the right of free expression shall not be trampled upon especially by the rich, powerful and famous.
Thanks for commenting!
And those are two things severly lacking from the current system - campaigning and governing likewise!
And, I'll second (third?) the kudos for the headline for this article!
The fact that debate has begun on this issue means that the public must be voicing stong objections to the way campaigns are being run or there must actually be some elected officials out there who want things to change for the better, even if the public is not totally aware of the need for change.
As a member of the public, I can say that talk on the street about election reform is rare. However, apathy on the street related to the frustration the public feels because they feel alienated from the very political system that is supposed to represent them is extremely common.
I'm all for changing the way elections are financed, as long as the change is not simply "change for the sake of change". In other words, any change that does not include steps to reconnect we voters with the system we vote in will be a waste of time.
How do we get past the barrier of a candidate for president needing to be extemely wealthy in order to even be considered a viable candidate ? On the surface, public financing of elections seems to address that issue. But, will any law passed atually address that issue, or simply appear to addess that issue ? Simply labeling a new law "reform" has been tried in the past (recent past ) and result has been counter-productive.
Any new law that is an honest attempt to reform the way elections are financed should be loophole-free, or it will be worst than leaving things as they are.
I agree that unions are special interest groups as are all other lobbying groups. There is nothing hypocritical about that because unions were formed by workers to promote the causes of workers. Just as those working for pharmaceuticals promote the interests of pharmaceuticals.
Gary Fischbach,
\\\\Think Reid and Pelosi will publicly state that Moveon.org's rip on General Petreaus was out of line?////
Yeah, about the time that the Republican candidates start condemning the Hannity and Limbaugh's right wing diatribes, lies and misrepresentations!
Micky D.,
Full disclosure is almost, not totally, meaningless in this matter. Bottom line is that many companies giving to one candidate may very well give to his or her opponent at the same time. Look at the money from lawyers going to Democratic candidates, then look at the amount going to the top Republican candidates. Democrats get most but their both getting it!
Laura,
Goo article! I for one, would definitely support public financing of campaigns as I feel that it is probably the only way to get sanity back into the campaigns. Right now, the people have no legislators back there to represent us. The senator or congressman for which you may have voted is not going to spend an hour or two of his time on an intermittent basis to listen to me about legislation because I didn't have big bucks to give him at the campaign level. He will grant that time to the lobbyists from the various interests who did give money.
There were over 1000 lobbyists working on the Medicare Part D bill when it was passed three years ago. The drug and insurance interests were well represented! Was I? Hell no! Though I am a beneficiary of this legislation, I wrote my senators and congressman to ask them to vote against the bill as it was poorly conceived and badly executed and best served the interests of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries! Nevertheless, the bill passed and the insurance companies as well as the drug companies have received windfall profits as a result. Those profits are coming from my tax dollars!
So, until you remove the need for the elected representatives to raise huge amounts of money, you cannot restore the congress to the people and persuade them to actually serve the people!
I would be willing to accept another means if someone can come up with a satisfactory method as I don't like the idea of telling a person he can only give so much. A possible alternative might be to limit the amount of money a person might spend on all kinds of media expenditures such as radio, newspaper and TV adds. Something like public financing or limiting media expenditures might cause more of the campaigning to revert to the grass roots level out of necessity.
Some one above estimated there were a million taxpayers in the US for the purpose of funding campaigns. I'm not sure this is possible when the population is only about 300 million and at least a third of these are not taxpayers! I don't think one dollar per return is going to come close to funding meaningful campaigns.
An interesting stat from the book Freakonomics is that in the 2000 election, more money was spent by Americans on chewing gum than was spent by the politicians. Sort of puts things into perspective, doesn't it?