The Politics of Political Contributions

A post written by the A. Michael Scott, our esteemed administrator and creator, raises a complicated issue: campaign spending. So, I apologize for this lengthy post, but I include what little I can figure out and hope someone cares to respond because I’m no political economist. This post started out as a too-long comment.

First, please read the post Whining Democrats Actually Outspending Republicans, the prelude that got me started on this issue.

Here’s the stats. If Dems are whining, the have good reason regarding campaign financing. And, no, the Republicans are still far and away receiving more money during this 2010 elections

A comment by Krell led me even further down my research tangent, so here’s my 2 cents. The highest amount of money ever spent for a governor’s chair is in California. Golden State residents are appalled at the $170 million Whitman spend on her campaign. By comparison, Brown’s budget was a scant $25 million and he’s leading the race by 8 points. Sometimes, outspending works against a party that overspends. And rarely

Arguably, the two major reasons why GOP spending out paces the Dems is: (1) corporations are now “people” (according to the Supreme Court, see below) and corporations, usually, but not always, donate to the Republicans, a party more corporation friendly; and (2) many foreign investors now fund elections. The passage of NAFTA (why did you sign this, Bill?) and increased U.S. importing due to lowered taxes may well cause overseas investors to skew Republican. Whether foreign investments fall under transparency regulations is anyone’s guess

So, perhaps, Democrats and progressives DO have a right to whine. That doesn’t mean the party should give up, but here are some counterpoints to the discussion that the Democratic Party receives more funding

The financial ramifications go far deeper than who’s spending more money than whom; rather the question is where does the money come from, which politicians are getting the lion’s share, as well as questioning the legal and moral issues associated with such revenues. “What will political parties owe or how will they be expected to pay the contributors for the backing?”

The Washington Post notes that Dems are “catching up in financial contributions, but that donations by groups f]or the week ending October 24, groups spent a total of $96,843,111, with $52,917,911 on behalf of Republicans and $43,784,367 on behalf of Democrats.”

The Washington Post also breaks down campaign spending in total and by by specific groups.The contributions detailed for each group provides a nice breakdown of Democrat/Progressive contributions.

Newsweek reports

The height of the 2010 campaign is still months away, but the fundraising season is in full swing, and Republicans may be set to win the battle by a long shot…

American Crossroads, a GOP fund-raising and advocacy group associated with Karl Rove, has pledged $52 million but has just begun to test its fund-raising muscle and has only raised $8.5 million so far. The well-heeled U.S. Chamber of Commerce has pledged $75 million, according to a Center for Public Integrity report, more than twice what it spent in 2008, which was its highest-spending year ever…

As of its most recent Federal Election Commission filing at the end of May, the Democratic National Committee had $14.5 million cash on hand to spend on candidates across the country. Its counterparts in the Republican National Committee reported $12.6 million. That’s a slight edge, but if the pledges from Republican-leaning interest groups are any indication, Democrats will have to hope for outside supporters to launch their own campaigns if they want to have the sort of financial backing that Republicans expect.

The actual amount of campaign contributions vs. spending is unclear. For example, in January 2010, no cap political spending was legislated by the Supreme Court, which ruled corporations are people. A New York Times article indicates: “The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy. ”

Two of the five votes came from, unsurprisingly, from Justices Scalia and Thomas. The Huffington Post reported:

Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority.

How does one determine where the connection between private corporations’ First Amendment rights in balancing out an individual’s right to free speech? During the 2004 election cycle, CEO Wally O’Dell of Diebold’s comment pledging that Ohio’s electoral votes in 2003 would go to George Bush.

Common Dreams cites the infamous August 14th letter from O’Dell: “The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is ‘committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year…’ The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.”

Fast forward to June 2010, when the SEC indicted O’Dell, who was in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. He quit his job a short time later for “personal reasons.”

The idea of considering corporations as individuals that have the Constitutional right of free speech is profoundly disturbing in consideration of this sole incident, a direct parallel of the Supreme Court’s decision.

On point radio [PBS affiliate] points out the massive amounts of money spent in this mid-year election cycle

It’s Wild West time in spending on politics this year. A billionaires’ ball. A union blowout. But most of all, in this midterm election season, unlimited, often anonymous, money rolling in behind Republican campaigns.

Democrats get it too, no doubt. But since the Supreme Court threw the reins off political spending this year with its eye-popping Citizens United ruling, Republican fund raisers have been on a tear. Three times the Dems raise for the House. Seven times for the Senate. Who’s giving what? And how? We try to pull the lid off.

There is no final arbiter of determining transparency in party contributions. Certainly, the funding provided by various groups and individuals to maintain a two-party system obviates the potential for other parties to have a voice.

Open Secrets also provides a detailed overview of political contributions.

The most concerning part of this long, tedious post is that I have only been able to make a tiny scratch on the surface. To paraphrase Randi Rhodes, it’s time to do your homework if you want to dig deeper into this critically important issue.

Good night and good luck…

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %