Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Campaign Finance Moment of Truth
Decades of lawmaking and court decisions restricting the flow of cash into U.S. elections are on the verge of coming undone, placing President Barack Obama in the unexpected position of presiding over the possible demise of the modern campaign finance regime.
John McCain and Russell Feingold answer questions.
The Supreme Court has signaled it will consider overturning a key pillar of the seminal 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, and the White House and congressional leaders have ignored increasingly frantic calls to buttress the campaign finance system. (John McCain and Russ Feingold are pictured in this POLITICO image.) Most of the developments now threatening to reverse efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics were set in motion during George W. Bush's presidency. But Obama is nevertheless poised to watch the regulatory regime crumble around him as his administration follows a cautious approach that mostly ignores calls for more activist steps to salvage the troubled campaign finance system
The irony that the system could collapse on Obama's watch, after he convinced the advocates for stricter regulations that he was one of their own, is not lost on those who support limits on the flow of money into the American political system.
"I would like to see the president make good on his campaign promises to change the way Washington works," said Paul Ryan, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit that pushes Congress, the White House, the Federal Election Commission and the courts to enact, enforce and uphold strict limits. "With respect to the campaign finance laws and the FEC, the only change we've seen has been a change for the worse," said Ryan, who stressed, "I'm not blaming the president. I'm just stating it as a factual matter."
Ryan's group and others in the so-called campaign finance reform community had largely given Obama the benefit of the doubt during his presidential campaign, even as he broke a promise to participate in a Watergate-era clean election system on the way to raising a record-setting $665 million. He also got a pass during his busy first few months in office as his administration welcomed reform leaders into the White House for the first time.
But Obama has otherwise done little to advance the campaign finance agenda and has failed to take tide-stemming steps available to him, a source of considerable frustration for reform advocates who had embraced him as a longtime proponent of reducing the role of money in campaigns.
In the past couple of months alone, a bitter partisan deadlock has escalated at the Federal Election Commission, resulting in the reversal of enforcement precedents and dismissal of case after case of alleged violations. The Supreme Court has signaled it will consider overturning a key pillar of the seminal 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, and the White House and congressional leaders have ignored increasingly frantic calls to buttress the campaign finance system.
Taken as a whole, the campaign finance reform community fears that the current trend - if left unchecked - portends an explosion of spending in the 2010 midterm and 2012 presidential elections.
The White House did not respond to questions about the FEC or the impending Supreme Court decision.
Sources tell POLITICO that Obama advisers - including Norm Eisen, the White House counsel for ethics and campaign finance issues, - have listened intently in a series of private meetings and phone calls with the reform community over the past several months as the reformers articulated their top priorities: overhauling the FEC and the presidential public financing system.
Both were widely considered broken by the time Obama took the oath of office - the financing system in no small part because he became the first presidential candidate to reject public funds in the general election.
After taking heat from reformers, and editorial boards and Republicans for violating his pledge to participate in the system - which would have given him $84 million in taxpayer cash for his campaign but forced him to limit his spending to that amount - Obama promised to fix it if he were elected president.
But a draft bill from Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) to overhaul the system has been gathering dust on Obama's desk for months, even as Eisen continues to privately assure reformers that his boss will hold a White House news conference to unveil a version of it when he's ready.
"Norm Eisen has said that [Obama] will be there," said Daniel Weeks, president of Americans for Campaign Reform, a nonprofit group co-chaired by a bipartisan group of four former senators that pushes for public financing of both presidential and congressional campaigns. "What we don't know is when and the specifics" that Obama would support.
As for the FEC, by the time Obama took office, it had already drawn criticism for a pattern of 3-3 party-line votes that resulted in the dismissal of a string of enforcement actions. Those dismissals had the effect of reversing some earlier precedents. The agency had also earned the scorn of reformers for its loophole-ridden implementation of a bundling disclosure provision championed by then-Sen. Obama, who had touted it on the campaign trail as his top legislative accomplishment.
After Obama took office, the deadlock became deeper and more bitter at the six-member FEC panel, which by statute consists of three Democrats and three Republicans. Many of the reformers with whom Eisen regularly consulted expected Obama to shake up the agency in May, when time ran out on the partial terms of two Bush-nominated commissioners - Chairman Steven Walther, a Democrat, and Don McGahn, a Republican who was considered the leader of the anti-enforcement bloc.
But the reformers were disappointed when, instead, Obama tapped labor lawyer John Sullivan - who has advocated anti-regulation stances on behalf of his union - to fill a different seat, held by Democratic commissioner Ellen Weintraub, who has continued to serve on the commission even though her term expired two years ago.
A week later, Eisen dodged a question at a Washington conference of reform groups about what specifically the administration was going to do to advance campaign finance regulation.
"The best is yet to come," he said. "We are going to continue this fight. We are not going to stop. We are not going to quit, no matter what."
That wasn't good enough for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). While he had largely retreated from his leadership on campaign finance issues in the run-up to his unsuccessful presidential campaign against Obama, last month he reunited with Feingold, his partner in the 2002 campaign finance overhaul, to block Sullivan's nomination.
The lawmakers signaled they would release their hold on Sullivan only if Obama also tapped nominees "with a demonstrated commitment to the existence and enforcement of the campaign finance laws" to succeed McGahn and Walther.
That might require Obama to spend some serious political capital, because both commissioners maintain strong support among congressional leadership and because Walther, in particular, was the personal lawyer for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
"The White House is going slow to appease congressional leaders," said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the reform group Public Citizen who lobbied for McGahn's ouster when Eisen called Holman this summer alerting him that Obama planned to tap Sullivan.
"The disappointing thing is that Obama hasn't taken steps to remove what the real problem is, and that's Don McGahn," Holman said.
Holman conceded that the public financing part of the equation "is a tricky situation" for Obama.
If Obama pushes through a new system before the 2012 campaign, he'd either have to participate in it, which would likely limit his meteoric fundraising ability, or reject it and brace for a public relations hit.
Both the public financing and FEC debates, however, are overshadowed by a pending development over which Obama has no control: the Supreme Court's surprise announcement last week that, in lieu of deciding a relatively narrow case about whether restrictions on corporation-funded broadcast ads also applied to movies, it would consider overturning the restrictions as a whole.
Those restrictions are a major pillar of McCain-Feingold. And the court's announcement that it would hear arguments in September from the Obama administration and the group challenging the restrictions prompted angst among the reformers, who predicted a sweeping decision could reverse the century-old prohibition on corporate contributions to candidates.
McCain-Feingold skeptics - including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - are expected to be able to cobble together a majority with swing vote Anthony Kennedy on the case and, reformers fear, two other cases that could reach the Supreme Court and possibly strike down other parts of McCain-Feingold.
"The debate has definitely shifted," said Brad Smith, a former FEC commissioner who now heads the Center for Competitive Politics, a nonprofit group that opposes some campaign finance regulations as infringements on free speech rights. "Debates tend to shift in Washington. I'm of the view that there never are complete victories in politics, but I feel pretty optimistic."

28 Comments so far
Show Allthis is funny. the great financing system we have now is in jeopardy? you can't be serious. it's been dead since the Buckley decision in '76. the court can't really do much more damage than is already done now, with the sole exception of removing disclosure requirements for contributors. and even now with disclosure most people don't have any idea who gives what, so even that's not a big deal anymore.
i think the only people who care about this are party flacks.
Letting corporations open the floodgates and let their campaign contributions flow into political campaigns would be terrible for America. But it wouldn't be nearly as terrible for America as the unjustifiably-high campaign spending that's worsening the quality of the politicians America is getting. America needs campaign spending limits more than it needs any other campaign finance reform or anything else.
For a list pf corporate lobbying in first quarter in 2009 see
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18394.cfm
Have a barf bag handy
Nothing will change until we pound a wooden stake through the heart of corporate 'personhood.'
Please see http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_corporate_personhood
Humbaba July 8th, 2009 9:38 am
"Nothing will change until we pound a wooden stake through the heart of corporate 'personhood.'"
Yes - "artificial" persons are either vultures or vampires. The wooden stakes will work for the vampires, but I'm not sure if they will destroy the vultures.
There must be another way to stop the vultures from circling their victims in broad daylight.
It's unfixable. I thought if Obama were really smart and wise and could work his way around politics he might make a difference. Seems that he's just another politician, though a very well spoken one---and I'm just an old fool, as usual.
But I didn't vote for him. At least I have that. I think Ralph Nader would not make a very good president, but I voted for him because I wanted him to have more of of voice in government.
If I remember correctly, Obama opted out of public financing while even Mccain stayed. I thought that was enough to confirm Obama's true colors on picking money over principle.
Sigh, I know Nader would not make a perfect politician but for the same reasons I too voted for him and on the issues. Voting on the issues and with a non-political point of view is what our electorate lacks. It will be interesting to see who all decide to correct that handicap the worse things get. In the meantime, I say let's not give up our part. I'm proud of you for the way you voted.
If you're an old fool, George, then so am I. As we both know, the longer you live, the more of a fool ya get to be. It comes with realizing how little things really change and how little we really know.
I'm glad you voted for Nader. Ralph is a good guy. But you're right, he would not have made a very good president. Though, that really reflects more on our electoral system (perhaps, the system writ large) than it does him.
Finally, you're right - it is unfixable. It's the same personalities in the same suits saying the same things and following the same script. Very few of them actually practice what they preach, and those who do get very little done. I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't. As Edna St. Vincent Millay once quipped: "It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's the same damn thing over and over."
Anyway, I am not sure what I will do next election. I am more and more inclined to do what George Carlin did - stay home. I realize just how little positive inclination voting has. For me, it is purely, simply, a defensive move, and that's where I am. I feel I can get more done to move things in a positive direction by doing things in my backyard and within my community. I'll let the rest of the pack fight over the electoral bones, which have been picked clean by now.
A spot o bad news from Florida. This from a "headline" of my daily progressive news round-up. Seems that the federal court ruling on 527s may be as harmful to campaign finance reform as any impending demise of Feingold/McCain. The old "corporate personhood" (free speech rights) monster seems to raise its ugly head here again.
To read the story: http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ (5th headline, click bold lettering).
HATE THOSE 527 "ELECTIONEERING" GROUPS THAT HAVE POURED MILLIONS OF UNACCOUNTABLE CAMPAIGN DOLLARS INTO SLEAZY FLORIDA ELECTION CAMPAIGNS?
Get used to them. Florida's top elections officer abandons the state's appeal against a court ruling that such suppressions of "free speech" are un-constitutional. One political analyst calls this a "game-changer" development for Florida politics, but maybe it more like "let the game continue."
Please see http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_corporate_personhood
I do not understand what is to reform, some details, and Senator Rex Tillman is doing serious work on these while our President leads us forward.
azjoe: your reference to Senator Rex Tillman is WAY too esoteric to me. Only Senator Tillman I've ever heard of was Benjamin aka Rex asa Pitchfork Tillman, a flamboyant Senator from S.C. at the turn of the 20th century. I don't know what he has to do with the current campaign finance reform issue, or how whatever President you had in mind is/was "leading" us, but inquiring minds want to know, so please educate us.
Good Morning Jerry Rose, Senator Tillman is the CEO of EXXON. Corporation's control of politicians, their buying and selling, brought His Emmminence to mind as an Iconic example of Corporation's absolute and total control of who gets elected.
And President leading us? That reference Jerry Rose was also sarcastic mental malfeasance, given OhBombYa's turning into a Trojan Horse, I meant leading us over a cliff.
Thanks a hundred times over for your not unkindly worded query for clarification, joe.
Jerry D Rose, The answers to your questions are posted below.
But I have a question for you if I may, though I know the answer, you spoke in the plural, said minds not mind and us not me, who else did you speak for? Someone next to you at your computer mayhap? Hi out there to them!
Sorry you had not heard of the CEO of EXXON's name. It was my pleasure to "educate," you. He's jjbeen prominently mentioned in Common Dreams articles countless times. Things can be found ABOVE the threads.
Azjoe, for whats it's worth (in the global scheme of things, not much), the CEO of Exxon is Rex Tillerson, maybe a small factor when I did not "remember" him when you mentioned Senator Rex Tillman.
As the plurality of the inquiring minds want to know, it's just an expression or maybe a play title and I was indulging in some verbal fancy footwork of my own when I used that expression. Just goes to show you (the plural you) that maybe we can all be too cute by half when we could be just plain explicit.
Jerry Rose, thanks for clarifying Tillerson's moniker for me. I think we should continue with the verbal dance though, marching is a drag. You in particular should not amend your pen, it's incisive, and unlike my ramblings always clear!
Thanks again for the Tillerson correction, God or Anarchy save us, Rex controls our lives a bit, "Help Mr. Wizard!"
As long as former California Treasurer Jesse Unrah's sage maxim, "Money is the mother's milk of politics" applies (and with the current US Supreme Court, will have even more force), this problem applies.
But Obama has otherwise done little to advance the campaign finance agenda and has failed to take tide-stemming steps available to him . . .
Oh, big surprise. SLOBama wants the campaign finance laws to be weakened. It was either here of Truthdig where a commenter said that none of us has any idea whatsoever how deceitful a man SLOBama truly is.
The whole point of free speech was so that citizens could be heard in their representative government. No one person could be silenced by the government. Money is not speech. If it were, it would have a uniform distribution like citizenship does. The current system of money to control candidates both and before and after elections is tyranny.
Exhibit A: Obama and Jeffry Immelt. Immelt's MSNBC did so much to get Obama elected. He really should have been charged with violating existing law. But instead, Obama delivers and delivers and delivers for GE while giving the people GE lied to - ie, the liberals - the middle finger. Jeffry, would you like nuclear power plants to go with your bank bailout, your health care extravaganza and endless war?
We are not free. It's just that simple. Washington is riding this country down with $14 trillion of our dollars and our children's dollars given to keep doing business in Washington. Meanwhile, the vast majority of citizens say the country is on the wrong track, which is an understatement at this point. They need to revise that survey to include the option "we are completely screwed with no hope" at this point.
And Immelt gets a seat on the NY Fed, in case no one realizes at this point who Obama's folks are.
Let's impeach him.
I think it is a bad idea to impeach anybody, since we did not impeach Bush, so that takes the whole credibility of the impeachment procedures away. Just as somebody recently remarked here on Commondreams that the criminal justice system in the U.S. isn't worth anything until the biggest criminals Bush, Cheney and their cabal have been brought to justice.
It is a harsh thing to realize, but where Bush and Cheney have spectacularly succeeded in their eight years in office, is demonstrating that: yes, once you are in power in the U.S. you can get away with anything, and Obama still walks with that. I think if Obama proceeds in the way he does now I am sure that he will commit impeachable offenses, but the recent history of the U.S. has shown that impeachment can only be used for political reasons, not to uphold the Constitution and hold the Executive accountable. How to make the system of accountability work again ?
"Most of the developments now threatening to reverse efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics were set in motion during George W. Bush's presidency."
From this paragraph, one would think Bush had something to do with passing campaign reform.
If a vote be taken, a large majority would vote that McCain/Feingold be replaced with a ban on lobbyists and all campaign bribes. But what the majority wants and what corporations, banks and their bought politicians want are two different things.
Restoring the Fairness Doctrine would go a long way toward controlling oligarchy propaganda.
Giving term limits to SCOTUS and requiring their election would remove progressive's major obstacle.
If Bush could pass all regressive laws with a minority, why can't Democrats pass progressive laws? Conservative Democrat obstructionists come to mind.
This could be Obama's chance to give us real change.
"If Bush could pass all regressive laws with a minority, why can't Democrats pass progressive laws? Conservative Democrat obstructionists come to mind."
Which tells us what we already knew: The Democratic Party is rife with regressive "progressives."
"This could be Obama's chance to give us real change."
I hope we can, but does he have the will? Does he even have the mandate? I wonder how many Americans are even aware of campaign money and influence.
In a way, Obama's hands are tied - they were from day one. However, he now owns the bully pulpit and has the capacity and intelligence to use it however he sees fit. It's a treacherous road he travels and I hope he has the wisdom to choose his steps well. However, his following of the corporate script does not bode well for us.
Oh well, as Woody Allen aptly observed: "One road leads to hopelessness and despair, the other, to total extinction. Let us pray we choose wisely."
I'd hate to see you give up like that. I understand that some people think I'm crazy to vote for Nader thrice in a row despite the results but that's only if you exclude the dirty tricks the Democrat Party did to keep him and other 3rd parties off the ballots, debates, and airing on the media that prevented him from getting any traction. And I'm not even talking about the way the party has regressed even more year after year since Dubya took office. Don't tell me that Obama is any more liberal than Gore or Kerry. Obama's totally smashed all progressive/liberal ideas and solutions in addition to people's hope for real change they can believe in. Of course, I'm glad I didn't vote for Obama so I have nothing to lose.
"I hope we can, but does he have the will?"
He has the "will" to bully his own party into voting for more Wall $treet bailouts and war spending bills in addition to pushing to stifling progressive dissent. I'm sure there's better places to put that "will" to use, no?
"Does he even have the mandate?"
He got his 53% of the vote. What do you think he needs for a mandate?
"I wonder how many Americans are even aware of campaign money and influence."
People can be aware of it but as long as they keep falling for monied candidates and look at those who take the issues seriously as somehow crazy, money will triumph principle.
Unfortunately Jennifer, we have the same general public who allowed George Bush to disgrace and destroy this country for eight years. Now they are hypnotised by a Corporate owned sell out who is an expert at doublespeak. After the election someone asked Obama when his kids were going to get their promised dog. He joked that that was a promise made during the campaign so it didn't count. Now we find out he wasn't joking about campaign promises. they mean nothing to him. I had hoped I was wrong about Obama and take no satisfaction that I wasn't.
The fire we hold his feet to will have to get pretty hot for this one.
As I've been saying for a year now: look closely at those feet, and you will discover that they are cloven hooves-- quite comfortable in even the warmest places.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I really don't care how much anybody spends, but what I would like to see is a law MANDATING that any candidate receiveing matching funds be included in each and every debate. If the taxpayer is giving monies, the tax payer has a right to know what the person receiving those funds has to say. Just an opinion.