Common Cause Blog

What will happen to the change we voted for?

There will be a lot on President Obama's plate - and that of the 111th Congress: Rebuild the economy, reform the financial sector, reform the healthcare system, pass energy/environmental legislation. The election showed strong support for tackling all these critical issues, and more.� The nation is in crisis and voters are ready for change.

So, what could stop the change we voted for?� An election week poll found that 77% of voters are "worried that large political contributions will prevent Congress from tackling the important issues facing America."

Those voters are right to be worried.� While Obama's campaign revolutionized small donor fundraising on the internet, he also had a robust bundling operation taking in large donations from wealthy individuals.� As USA Today noted, "Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees or registered federal lobbyists, but many of his top fundraisers have keen economic interests in federal policies."

Perhaps�more important is the sad fact that congressional candidates continued their historical reliance on major donations and have done little to tap into the growing, and more�democractic,�small donor base.� The same bundlers for Obama were also working, along with others, to raise money for congressional candidates.� They will be coming to Congress to trade in their campaign chits for legislative favors.

With hundreds of billions of dollars flying out the US Treasury doors, these influential fundraisers will turn their attention from raising campaign money to grabbing what they see as their share of those billions.

What to do?� President-elect Obama and Congress must make change a priority when it comes to the way we fund campaigns.� They must enact change supported by 69% of voters: comprehensive public financing of elections.� Allow candidates to run for office on small donor contributions and limited public funds, eliminating the undue influence that comes with high-dollar fundraising.

Buying justice?

Over the weekend, the New York Times ran a editorial on a topic that often gets overlooked but is quickly becoming a major concern for a host of public interest organizations that count on judicial fairness: the megabucks flowing into judicial elections from special interests. The most egregious example recently, that the Times highlights, was the CEO of a major coal company bankrolling a state Supreme Court justice's electoral campaign, and then the justice turning around and casting the deciding vote to vacate a $50 million verdict against the CEO's company.

the deciding vote was cast by Justice Brent Benjamin. He refused to recuse himself despite the $3 million that Mr. Blankenship spent to get him elected.

Judicial neutrality and the appearance of neutrality are basic elements of due process. Not every contribution to a judicial campaign triggers due process concerns significant enough to require recusal, but Mr. Blankenship's outsized campaign expenditures surely did.

Across the country, state courts are drowning in a sea of special-interest campaign money. The American Bar Association has good standards for judicial recusal, which nearly every state court system and the federal judiciary have adopted.

Unfortunately, compliance is spotty. Situations like the Massey Energy case create an unmistakable impression that justice is for sale.

I'm no money manager, but I'm pretty sure that the $50 million, a 1,667% return on $3 million invested in campaign contributions, is what you'd call a "good return on your investment."

Unless you're invested in a healthy democracy and a fair, impartial judicial system. Then you'd just call that absurd and senseless and you'd push for public financing of judicial races, as we're doing.

"A" for Effort, Final Grade for Campaign Finance Reform Still Unknown

On Wednesday, Common Cause/New York, along with our coalition partners Citizens Union, the League of Women Voters of New York and NYPIRG issued a Reform Report Card, pointing out that two years after extensive promises of reform in Albany, little has been accomplished.

Final grade, as of today: F. Aware of our criticism, and having been urged on several occasions by CC/NY and its coalition partners to introduce a strong campaign finance bill, Governor Paterson finally got off the dime and announced the details of a bill he plans to introduce - as we were holding our press conference. At least we know we had some effect! You can watch Albany Channel 10's report about the press conference and the Governor's actions.

Citizens' Elections Program takes off in Connecticut

The Connecticut Citizens' Election Program handed the first election grants to qualified candidates at a press conference Tuesday that included some of the state's most prominent elected officials.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, House Majority Leader Rep. Chris Donovan, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz and many other officials were on hand to celebrate the arrival of the long-awaited campaign finance reform.

"We expect that we will be changing the face of the elections in CT for good and yes forever. These reforms make Connecticut a national leader in electoral reforms and in fact I believe we are a model for the rest of the nation."

So far, according to the State Elections Enforcement Commission, 145 candidates have opted into the program, though that number is expected to significantly increase in the coming weeks. CT News Junkie wrote:

Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz said it's estimated that 70 to 80 percent of candidates will participate in public financing this year, which is historic when compared to Maine and Arizona where the participation rate was about 30 percent in the first year. She said a federal survey a few years ago found that over time both Maine and Arizona experienced significant increases in the amount of candidates contesting races in both primaries and general elections. And voter participation in these two states has risen about 10 percent since public financing was enacted, Bysiewicz noted. CT News Junkie, June 3, 2008

All over the map: Arizona small donor study

What kind of impact does Clean Elections have on the participants in our democracy? A big one -- even greater than what we previously knew, thanks to Public Campaign's new study out this week, "All Over the Map: Small Donors Bring Diversity to Arizona's Elections." They looked at the donors in statewide races covered by the state-level Clean Elections program in Arizona and compared them to the donors in federal races for Senate, which have the same statewide electorate but currently have no public funding or Clean Elections option.

The difference is striking: from race and ethnicity to economic and geographic levels, the Clean Elections donors represent a much wider and more representative mix of citizens. Again, the executive summary is here.

A five point plan

USA Today has an "Improving Elections" editorial piece up that includes five sensible recommendations for a better presidential campaign, including paper records of votes cast on electronic voting machines, monitoring and curtailing the influence of 527s and other independent soft money groups, and taking public financing.

While they won't all be easy, they get it right in terms of making the election a boost for democracy and tackling important issues, rather than about trivialities and wealthy interests.

Small donors fueling Democrats in presidential race

The trend continues in the presidential race. As the Campaign Finance Institute's analysis of April fundraising numbers shows, small donors constitute a substantial majority of the recent financial support for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Both Democratic candidates raised more than half of their April funds in increments of $200 or less. John McCain remains dependent on large donors for the majority of his support. This does not tell the whole story -- after all, all three candidates relied on major donor support to launch their campaigns -- but it portends an exciting six months leading up to the November election. Hopefully more and more small donors buy into the presidential election process with a contribution and feel a greater stake in the outcome.

As I've noted in the past, this shouldn't be confused with trends in the races for Congress, which are moving in the opposite direction, where major donors dominate and small donors are "not a factor." We need Clean Elections-style public financing for Congress now more than ever.