Campaign finance

The Millionaire's Amendment Here At Home (UPDATED)

Josh Kalven — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:52:27 -0700

The Tribune's David Mendell takes a closer look at the Supreme Court's decision yesterday striking down the so-called "millionaire's amendment" and discerns that it wouldn't have any real effect on federal races here in Illinois this election cycle:

The amendment might have been triggered in the U.S. Senate race, in which incumbent Democrat Dick Durbin is being challenged by Republican physician Steve Sauerberg. The GOP candidate has given his campaign $1 million of his own money, but Durbin has raised $7.5 million. And because the amendment is implemented under a sliding scale formula, Durbin’s healthy campaign fund might have kept the amendment from kicking in. It would have allowed him to raise more than $2,300 from individuals, the current federal limit.

In the 14th Congressional district, Republican Jim Oberweis and Democratic Rep. Bill Foster each have dropped more than a $1 million of personal wealth into their campaigns, making the amendment a wash.

What Mendell fails to mention, however, is Marty Ozinga's vow not to spend more than $350,000 of his own money on his GOP bid for the 11th District congressional seat. That's the amount that would have triggered the amendment, allowing his Democratic opponent, Debbie Halvorson, to accept larger individual contributions.

It'll be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court's decision ultimately changes his thinking on the matter.

UPDATE: The Tribune talks to the Ozinga campaign and they indicate that the SCOTUS decision isn't going to have much of an effect on Marty's initial statements about how much he'd be willing to spend:

Wealthy southwest suburban congressional candidate Martin Ozinga III no longer has to worry about triggering the millionaire's amendment after the Supreme Court tossed that provision out of federal campaign finance law earlier this week.

But don't expect him to open up the vault and go on a spending spree in his 11th Congressional District bid to replace retiring Republican Rep. Jerry Weller.

"He's not planning to spend a ton of money out of his pocket. The honest answer to that question is, he has not made a decision on how much exactly he is going to spend," said Andy Sere, Ozinga's campaign manager, on Friday.

That mostly tracks with what Ozinga said when he launched his campaign in the spring, even if it's not what the Illinois Republican Party honchos were hoping for.

Thoughts On Obama's Public Financing Decision (Part 2)

Josh Kalven — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:49:44 -0700

In my first post on this subject, I endorsed Barack Obama's recent decision to opt out of the public financing system. I noted that the move makes obvious sense from a tactical standpoint and further argued that, within Obama's fundraising apparatus, small donors have an unprecedented amount of influence -- resulting in a balance that any reformed public financing system should encourage. In this post, I'll address how McCain has gotten a pass from the media in the midst of this controversy.

John McCain's accusations of an egregious, public financing flip-flop on Obama's part have been broadcast far and wide in the past week. What has been infuriating about this latest controversy -- and McCain's central role in exacerbating it -- is the lack of acknowledgement by the press corps and the editorial boards of how McCain gamed the public finance system this election year.

In case you don't know the details of McCain's maneuvering, here's a helpful recap from Media Matters' Jamison Foser:

John McCain said he would take public financing for the Republican primaries. Then he used the promise of that public financing to help secure a loan for his campaign. Then, after he wrapped up the Republican nomination, he abruptly decided he did not want to be bound by the limits on campaign fundraising and spending that accompany public financing, so he announced that he had changed his mind.

But Federal Election Commission chairman David Mason sent McCain a letter saying that he cannot unilaterally opt out of the public financing system without FEC approval -- a letter the McCain campaign ignored. If McCain cannot opt out of the system unilaterally, he has broken the law by raising and spending funds in excess of legal limits, and continues to do so each day. Even if McCain isn't breaking the law, he has already broken his word and "reversed himself" on the question of whether he would take public funding for the primaries.

Referring to the national coverage, Foser writes: "I have seen no indication that a single reporter has asked McCain to reconcile his criticism of Obama with his own on-again, off-again relationship with the public financing system."

While this is obviously a much more significant issue at the national level, it's also been a problem in our local coverage.

By my count, the Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet has published eight blog posts on the issue since June 19 -- the day Obama announced his decision. Three of them simply repeated criticism of Obama from the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee. One featured a press release from the group Democracy 21 blasting Obama. Two others offered evidence of Obama's "evolution" on the issue. And here's how she headlined her post on the Meet the Press discussion between Sens. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) last Sunday: "Graham on 'Meet the Press' on Obama broken pledge on public campaign financing: 'What he did by breaking his promise is reinforce every bad thing wrong with politics.' " Before cutting-and-pasting the MTP transcript, Sweet described Biden as "defending the undefendable for Mr. Obama."

Nowhere in Sweet's eight blog posts were McCain's campaign finance shenanigans mentioned. (Sweet has also commented on the controversy in repeated appearances on MSNBC.)

Meanwhile, over at The Beachwood Reporter last week, Steve Rhodes responded to the news of Obama's decision this way:

The spin from the Obama camp - particularly in its latest e-mail to supporters - is wholly disingenuous. A good rule of thumb: How would you feel if the situation was reversed? In other words, Obamaphiles would be lambasting John McCain to high heaven right now if he pulled this move.

Say what you will about the Obama camp's spin, McCain pulled his own "move" on public financing, possibly in violation of the law. A lot of folks on the left have cried foul. And the media has paid little attention to the matter, while repeating his attacks on Obama.

Finally, on Friday's edition of Chicago Tonight, Chicago Magazine contributing editor Bob Reed said that, fortunately for Obama, "not that many people care about campaign finance -- maybe with the exception of John McCain":

To many in the media, McCain will always be the lonely crusader for campaign finance reform and comprehensive immigration policy. He'll always be the maverick who stood up to the Bush administration on tax cuts and torture. Nevermind that he has compromised his integrity on every one of those issues.

In related news, one of the reasons McCain has escaped scrutiny on his gaming of the public financing system is that the FEC board has been unable to function due to a six-month disagreement in the Senate over one of Bush's nominees. That impasse came to end yesterday, as the five new commissioners were confirmed by the Senate. Hopefully, we'll be hearing more about the legality of McCain's actions in the near future -- from a fully-functioning FEC, if not the media.

Thoughts On Obama's Public Financing Decision (Part 1)

Josh Kalven — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:01:51 -0700

On June 19, Barack Obama announced that he would forgo public financing in the general election. I think both the decision itself and the resulting media coverage deserve some further discussion. So I'm going to cover both facets of this issue in separate blog posts today.

First, let's address the decision and the immediate response.

That the McCain campaign is jumping all over Obama for this move is no suprise. They're going to take every opportunity to hit the Democratic nominee hard on any perceived shifts in position.

Meanwhile, the media's harsh treatment of Obama on this issue isn't all that shocking either. If you run on the mantle of "change" and a "new kind of politics," you expose yourself to more forceful criticism when your campaign strategy appears too pragmatic.

Least surprising of all is the campaign's actual decision to pass up public funds. As has been noted elsewhere, it makes perfect sense from a tactical standpoint. We learned over the past eight years how high the stakes are when it comes to presidential politics. No sane Democratic strategist would give up Obama's significant advantage in resources this time around.

But while the GOP and various good government groups have lambasted him, the decision to pass up public funds shouldn't be viewed as evidence that Obama isn't serious about campaign finance reform. In fact, I'd argue that the most effective way to ensure reform is to win the election. And by opting out of the system this year, he has a much greater chance of doing just that.

I would even offer up Obama's fundraising operation as an example of what a reformed system should attempt to replicate. On the one hand, he has taken a good deal of money from Wall Street and other corporate interests. But the influence of those contributions has been offset by the army of small donor contributors that have helped fill his war chest. In short, the grassroots intensity surrounding his campaign has diluted the influence of the special interests that support him.

This phenomenon deserves some real attention as we discuss how best to overhaul campaign finance in this country. While good government groups propose equalizing the resources available to every candidate, what we should strive for is a public finance system that doesn't shut big donors out altogether, but rather gives ordinary Americans more influence. Mark Schmitt explained the principles behind this so-called "small donor democracy" model in his 2007 article on campaign finance:

Give small donors the same opportunity to express the intensity of their preferences as large donors. Don’t build complex systems that put government in the position of trying to equalize all resources or ban all contributions. Instead, let voters shape the process through their own preferences, through organizing to enhance their power, and by using public funds to echo and enhance the preferences of ordinary citizens.

So rather than attacking Obama for the corporate contributions he has accepted or for his decision to opt out of public financing, let's focus our attention on what his campaign has achieved -- it really does represent a "change" -- and figure out how to make it an attainable goal for those who'll follow.