publications | about us | on campus | jobs | alumni | cmap | straphangers campaign | fuel buyers group |
|
Laboratories and Campaign Finance
It’s often said that states are the policy “laboratories” for the nation. Sometimes states develop cutting edge policies that deal with a host of issues, like expanding health insurance to the uninsured, reducing prescription drug prices, prosecuting corporate crimes, and protecting the environment. But sometimes state “laboratories” create monsters, policy “Frankensteins.” A good example is in the area of campaign finance, where New York State has been the “laboratory.” Last month the head of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, Assemblyman Clarence Norman, was indicted for campaign finance abuses. His crime? According to the Brooklyn District Attorney, now-former Assemblyman Norman contacted a favored lobbyist to pay campaign finance bills – and those payments exceeded New York State’s generous campaign contribution limits. Just how generous are New York State’s limits? If you believe gubernatorial hopeful William Weld, very generous. Mr. Weld told the Albany Times Union last month that he didn’t see the need to tap into his personal fortune to fund his run for Governor. Weld, who spent his own money when he first ran for Governor of Massachusetts, believed that he could raise the “$60 million” needed for his run for New York’s chief executive. Weld said that since New York’s campaign contribution “limit” of $50,000 for individuals was so much higher than Massachusetts’s $500 limit, he thought he could raise tens of millions from wealthy individuals and powerful special interests. New York State’s sky-high contribution limits are not only a key reason why so few incumbents get beat in elections, they also deter other well-qualified candidates from even considering a run for office. How many average citizens could raise $60 million? Yet, despite the scandals and stifled elections that are the products of New York’s campaign finance “experiment,” the Congress is considering creating its own “Frankenstein.” Dressed up as “The 527 Fairness Act” (H.R. 1316) – an effort to curtail spending by groups outside of the federal campaign finance limits (the so-called “527” groups) – the legislation represents a wholesale attack on the progress made in the McCain-Feingold reform legislation. H.R. 1316 allows a single individual to contribute more than $1 million to the committees of a political party in a two-year election cycle (or more than $2 million to both parties). The current total overall limit is $60,400. H.R. 1316 allows a single individual to contribute a total of $2 million to the federal candidates of a political party in an election cycle. The current total limit is $40,000. H.R. 1316 allows trade associations, labor unions and advocacy groups to again use unlimited soft money donations from individuals to pay for broadcast ads promoting and attacking federal candidates close to an election. The bill was amended at mark up to improve financial disclosure requirements for 527 groups and ban gifts from foreign agents to 527s – two modest improvements that do little to counter the gigantic loopholes it creates. The nation does need real reform of independent political committees operating as 527 organizations. But it does not need to follow New York’s disastrous experiments. Members of Congress should unite behind legislation to regulate 527 groups in the same way as PACs and political parties are now. And New York’s gubernatorial hopefuls should be pulling the plug on the state’s campaign finance monster and advancing measures to lower contributions limits and create a system of campaign financing that relies on public funds so that average New Yorkers can have a shot for running for office. That’s all for now. I’ll be keeping an eye on the Capitol and will talk to you again next week.
|
 |
