As Scandal Spreads through the
Nation’s Capital,
It’s Time to Address the
Underlying Problem: Our Pay to Play Campaign Finance
System
Summary: With scandals swirling around disgraced
lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX),
likely to spread to dozens of members of Congress and
aides, official Washington’s reply
is to offer lobbying reform proposals. While
lobbying reform is important, these proposals lack
the crucial element needed to restore public
confidence in our political system: addressing the
pay-to-play campaign finance system that puts
lobbyists and other special interests ahead of
ordinary voters. In contrast, Connecticut,
Arizona, Maine, and other states and localities are
passing and implementing practical, proven full
public financing systems that allow candidates to run
for office without being in the pocket of well heeled
donors.
Background
With disgraced lobbyist Jack
Abramoff’s guilty plea and
agreement to cooperate with federal investigators,
official Washington is running scared. And no wonder:
as many as 60 lawmakers and aides may be vulnerable
to charges of trading official actions for campaign
money and other ethical and legal lapses, according
to some news reports. The blooming scandal has forced
Rep. Tom DeLay, with his many ties to Abramoff, to
give up his plans to regain his leadership position.
(Of course, DeLay also faces criminal charges for
laundering campaign funds in his home state of
Texas.) Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) is clearly implicated in
the Abramoff scandals, and many more names are likely
to be revealed in the months to come.
We do not know yet how far this investigation will
take us, but already, the Abramoff affair is the
worst political corruption scandal in a generation,
worse than Abscam, the
“selling†of the
Lincoln bedroom, or the Jim Wright book deal. This
new set of scandals revolving around money, politics,
and power will likely leave a permanent stain on our
history on the order of Watergate and Teapot Dome.
With scandal comes the cry for reforms. Trial
balloons are being sent up by members of Congress
from both parties, but, as yet, none touch the issue
of pay-to-play politics that is central to the
current crisis. In our current money-laden system, it
is virtually impossible for a politician to run a
successful campaign for office without climbing into
the pockets of lobbyists and special interest donors.
Jack Abramoff may represent an extreme in the
universe of lobbyists, but he is a product of the
current corrupting system. Without the help of
pay-to-play politics, Abramoff would not have been
able to rise to his notorious success any more than
Al Capone could have become king of
Chicago’s underworld without that
city’s bribery-fueled political
machine.
Take, for example, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA),
recently designated by Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist (R-TN) as his caucus’ point
man for reform proposals. According to the Center for
Responsive Politics, Santorum ranks as the top
recipient of lobbyist money during the current
political cycle. Since 2001, he has raised $182,470
from lobbyists. But that’s just
slightly more than two percent of the $11.5 million
total in campaign cash during that period. In
contrast to his lobbyist money,
Santorum’s taken $1.3 million from
finance, insurance, and real estate
companiesâ€"the very sorts of interests
that hire these lobbyists.
What is true for Santorum is true for all. In the
2004 elections lobbyists contributed $26.9 million, a
sizable chunk of change. However, this amount is
dwarfed by the $1.5 billion contributed by other
business interests.
Reforms, if they are to have teeth, cannot ignore
this deeper issue of a Washington, D.C. political and
policy system marinated in special interest money.
Deeper Reform: Cities and States Leading the
Way
In sharp contrast to Washington, DC, a number of
states and localities around the nation are forging
forward and passing bold but common sense reform that
provides full public financing for candidates running
for public office. Full public financing of elections
puts ordinary voters in charge and takes power away
from well-heeled lobbyists and other special
interests.
- In December 2005, the
Connecticut legislature and
Republican governor approved legislation offering
public financing to statewide and legislative
candidates who agree to spending limits and prove
their seriousness by collecting small contributions
from constituents; the bill also bans most lobbyist
political contributions. Connecticut is the first
state in the nation where the legislature and
governor have approved full public financing for
their own races. The Connecticut reforms follow
scandals that put former Connecticut Governor John
Rowland, two big city mayors, and a state treasurer
in jail.
- Last May, the Portland, Oregon
City Council approved a new system of
“Voter Owned
Elections,†making the city the first in
the nation to adopt a system of full public
financing. Already, city elections are more
competitive with a more diverse range of candidates.
The vote followed Portland voters saying "no" to a
million-dollar mayoral candidate backed by
big-business special interests and electing a
reform-minded council. On Tuesday, January 17,
utility companies and other big businesses are
expected to turn in signatures for a repeal
initiative intended for the May 2006 ballot. These
lobbyists and special interests lost the City Council
vote and are taking this to the ballot in a
transparent attempt to maintain their influence in
City Hall. Backers of the Voter-Owned Elections
ordinance are organized and fighting back.
-
Albuquerque, New Mexico voters
passed the Open and Ethical Elections Code in
October, 2005 by a 69% to 31% vote. The measure
provides public funding to qualifying candidates
who agree not to accept contributions from
individuals or special interests.
-
Arizona and Maine
have offered full public financing of statewide and
legislative races, or Clean Elections, since the
2000 election cycle. In both states, there is
strong participation by candidatesâ€"58%
of the current Arizona House and 23% of the current
Arizona Senate ran
“Clean,†as did all
but one of Arizona’s statewide
elected officials. And 78% of Maine legislature
used public financing to gain office. Both states
have seen increased candidate participation and
competition, a more diverse group of legislators
and officials elected.
-
North Carolina, New
Mexico, Vermont and
New Jersey have Clean Elections
systems for some races. In 2003, the North Carolina
legislature enacted a public funding option for
State Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
candidates. In New Mexico, this year, for the first
time, candidates running for the Public Regulatory
Commission will have the option to qualify for full
public funding. In Vermont, the system that
provides public funding for gubernatorial and
lieutenant gubernatorial candidates is not in wide
use because of legal attacks on spending limit
provisions unique to that
state’s law; however, the United
States Supreme Court has agreed to review the
constitutionality of these limits later in 2006.
This past year, in New Jersey, a public financing
pilot project was implemented for two State House
districts.
National Reforms with Teeth
In the face of the burgeoning Abramoff/DeLay scandal,
Congress has an opportunity to take up reforms that
change the way Washington does business, reducing the
influence of lobbyists and the vested interests that
hire them.
Most importantly, Congress must squarely
address the inherent conflicts in our system of
privately financing campaigns by taking up the issue
of publicly financed elections. The current
presidential partial public financing system is
broken; it must be fixed. Further, full public
funding should be available to congressional
candidates who agree to limit their spending. Any
reform plan that does not include elements providing
an alternative to the special interest funding of
federal campaigns will not effectively deal with the
most troublesome core issues facing our political
system
In addition, Public Campaign supports
proposals that will:
- provide greater transparency to
lobbyist-lawmakers dealings by requiring increased
disclosure on a real time basis made available to the
public via the internet;
- curtail lobbyist influence by: prohibiting
lobbyists from giving gifts to members of Congress
and paying for trips for them; bolster revolving door
provisions; and sharply limiting campaign
contributions from lobbyists’ and
lobbyists’ bundling of client
contributions; and
- strengthen the ethics review process, including
establishing a new independent ethics prosecutor for
Congress.
# # #
Public Campaign is a non-profit, non-partisan
organization dedicated to sweeping reform that aims
to reduce dramatically the influence of special
interest money and big contributors on America's
elections. Public Campaign is laying the foundation
for reform by working with citizen organizations and
other groups around the country that are fighting for
comprehensive change. Together, we are building
powerful national force for state and federal reform.
|