One of the best lectures I've ever heard - ever, on any subject - was presented by Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig at Netroots Nation 2008 in Austin (watch the 2nd video clip at this link, and see part of what I mean). Lessig spoke of the corrosive effect of money in politics - real and perceived - which led him to launch Change Congress (later Fix Congress First), which has evolved into Rootstrikers.org, "a network of activists fighting the corrupting influence of money in politics."
He has now written a book, "Republic, Lost: A Declaration of Independence," setting forth his conclusions about how extensively money has corrupted politics. And it couldn't be better timed, as noted by Huffpost:
The protesters occupying Wall Street have been famously without a formal manifesto. But if they wanted one, firebrand Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig's new book about how money has corrupted Congress might be a contender.
And, he's coming to New Jersey to talk about it. This Monday, October 17th at 7:30 at Ramapo College, Trustees Pavilion in Mahwah, Lessig will present "The Best Government Money Can Buy" - a free lecture co-sponsored by North Jersey Public Policy Network, BlueWave NJ and the Ramapo College Department of Law and Society. The event is part of the North Jersey Public Policy Network's Distinguished Expert Series.
I'll be there. And, if you want to have your mind blown by one of the leading thinkers in America, on an issue of the utmost importance to our democracy, you may just want to join me.
Senator Bob Menendez sat down for an interview with POLITICO recently, and here's that video. Menendez ran the Senate's 2010 campaign strategy, a year we lost 6 seats. Part of what he talks about here is the rise of corporate spending on the right, post Citizens United, particularly the fueling of tea party candidates by the Koch brothers. Overall, Menendez says he tracked $70 million in corporate spending against Senate Democrats. He calls it "a corruption of our election system," that absent a constitutional solution, should require greater disclosure and transparency in spending.
Menendez also has strong advice for 2012 candidates, to seize the debate over gas prices, the budget and federal spending, offering a well-framed debate that resonates with most Americans simplistic cries of things like "Drill, baby, drill." That's a particularly attractive piece of advice as we approach the 1-year anniversary of BP's Deepwater Horizon explosion and the massive oil spill that dirtied the Gulf of Mexico. Menendez is against allowing an expansion of offshore drilling - both our senators are - and has an idea how Democrats can respond legislatively to the BP oil spill disaster. "Use it or lose it," Menendez says: legislation that would essentially penalize companies that do not produce on drilling leases they have already been granted.
Ed Potosnak just finished a press conference in Trenton that offered up a suggestion to GOP incumbent Rep. Leonard Lance: Disclose your total spending on "campaign" mail sent by your Congressional office for the current FEC financial disclosure quarter. Potosnak is the Democrat challenging for Lance's seat.
The idea is that if taxpayers knew how much of their hard-earned money went into this kind of backdoor campaigning, congressional representatives might spend less of it. Potosnak isn't telling Lance - or any incumbent - to stop reaching out to constituents on the public's dime - he's asking his opponent to report to his constituents how much of their money he's spending doing that. Campaign finance sunshine - this is good. Smart. Clean. Decent. Frankly, I'd appreciate all New Jersey incumbents doing that - of both parties.
This week, Potosnak says, Congressional office disbursement statements from the first 3 months of 2010 show Lance spent over $131,000 to send 1.2 million pieces of mail to NJ-7 voters - during an election year. The franking privilege goes largely unexamined by voters, but amounts to a tremendous financial advantage incumbents enjoy, because some of them use it to trumpet their own achievements without sticking on a stamp. It amounts to campaigning at taxpayer's expense.
That same Congressional report says Lance spent about 20 times more of the public's money on franking privilege mail in the first quarter of (election year) 2010, than he did in the first quarter of (non-election-year) 2009.
Lance narrowly won his Republican primary in June - receiving the smallest amount of support of any NJ incumbent.
Potosnak says that one of the things he wants to do when he gets to Congress is offer legislation requiring all members of Congress to print the cost of that mailer on the mailer itself, so people know in real time what that mail is costing them. His bill would also require lawmakers post a section on their official government website, with a running total of how much has been spent on printing and sending franking privilege snail mail.
So, a group of Republicans going by the name "Reform Jersey Now" is running ads in favor of Chris Christie's agenda. Not much new there -- after all, many TV ads for Christie were paid for by the RGA, not Christie's official campaign -- but what I think is interesting is that unlike the RGA (or the DGA) this group evades both state and federal campaign finance laws.
The "chief strategist" of the Christie campaign explained how the scheme works to NJ.com:
As a 501(c)(4) organization, the group is not required to publicly disclose its donors. [Mike] DuHaime said it will voluntarily disclose donor information to state and federal regulators at least once a year, but declined to say when that would begin.
He said the group can accept unlimited contributions and will not restrict them based on New Jersey's pay-to-play laws, which ban those with state contracts worth more than $17,500 from donating more than $300 to statewide campaigns. "We're going to fully disclose, so people can make their own judgment on it," DuHaime said.
Contributions need not come from people: Democrats point out that the website asks for corporate money. I suspect there may not be any actual disclosure next year, nor need a "voluntary" disclosure be complete. (Here's a good example of how a 501(c)(4) was used to "pay to play" in Florida. The donors were kept secret.)
For people that aren't regular followers of politics and campaigns, they may not know about the Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC). Richard Lee, Director of Communications with the Hall Institute interviewed Jeff Brindle, who provided a pretty good overview of the organization's responsibilities and then got into some specifics of election law in New Jersey:Having run campaigns in the past, I'm very familiar with filing deadlines and reporting requirements. They are a non-partisan agency that serves as the watch dog regulating the flow of campaign monies to candidates and committees. Brindle also talked in the interview about changes they would like to see made to the system going forward to close the loopholes that still exist. Though they are non-partisan, members are appointed by the Governor, who is in the process of remaking ELEC. Unfortunately, he has once again stumbled over the whole transparency thing in the process.
In the interview, they also talked about the recent Citizen's United case and how that might impact the campaign finance system. It's interesting that Brindle pointed to the fact that the court actually came out strongly for strengthening the requirements for disclosure over what New Jersey currently has. They also covered our Gubernatorial public financing model as well. If you're at all interested in the financing of elections, the interview is worth a watch. You can find more information on ELEC's website as well.
If you violate your public office and are charged with a crime, the NJ Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday affirming ELEC's decision that you can't use campaign funds to pay for a defense. That led to this quote from Justice Barry Albin:
"Despite blaring headlines that announce the most recent prosecution and conviction of a public official, we have yet to reach the point when it can be said that defending against a federal or state criminal indictment alleging corrupt practices is an 'ordinary' expense of holding public office,"
Good. You shouldn't be able to use money you raise from people to represent them for defending yourself after doing wrong by them.
Led by Mr. Barbour, the RGA raised and contributed $7.3 million to the campaign of New Jersey candidate Chris Christie, allowing him to put up enough TV advertising to hold off both a late-surging Gov. Jon Corzine, the Democratic incumbent, and independent Chris Daggett. The result for the crime-busting former U.S. attorney, Mr. Christie, was a big victory in a state won easily by Barack Obama just a year earlier.
And as a result of that win, they made him one of the guests of honor at the annual conference this week:
I have to ask, where did they find that picture of our new Governor? It looks like something the Corzine campaign would have used in one of their ads. For $7.3 million, couldn't they do just a little bit better? It'll be interesting to see how that compares with what labor spent on the election.
ELEC reports today that even less money is being raised and spent on Assembly races this cycle than they anticipated:
Candidates for the General Assembly have raised $14.6 million and spent $10.2 million, according to 11-day pre-election reports filed with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission for the 2009 General Election.
"These figures represent an even more dramatic decrease in financial activity from four years ago than was reported at the 29-day reporting period," said Jeff Brindle, Executive Director of the Commission.
In 2005, the last time there were contests for Governor and Assembly, Assembly candidates had raised $19.4 million and spent $14.9 million by this time.
While they say that the Governor's race and tough economy have helped contribute to the 25% drop in fundraising and 32% drop in spending, they credit pay to play laws as an additional factor:
"What we have witnessed since Pay-to-Play laws were enacted and executive orders issued is a slowdown in campaign financial activity, culminating in the dramatic decrease at all levels this year," said Brindle.
"Potential donors are hesitant to give, fearing being in violation of the law, forfeiting a public contract, or being prohibited from negotiating and bidding on a contract."
"It is safe to say that Pay-to-Play laws are working with regard to reducing the amount in contributions going directly to candidates," he said.
Overall, the Assembly Democrats have more than their opponents:
Democratic candidates raised $10 million, spent $7.2 million and have $2.8 million cashon-hand. Republican candidates have raised $4.5 million, spent $2.9 million and have cash-onhand totaling $1.5 million. Independents have reported $118,081 raised and $60,971 in expenditures. Cash-on-hand for Independents amounts to $56,929.
They said that even in prior tough economic times, campaign spending would still increase and sometimes significantly, seeming to discount the economy's influence. Do you agree with their assessment? What do you think has caused the drop in fundraising and spending?
The new media team of the Democratic Governor's Association (DGA) just held a conference call with bloggers. I asked about the role the DGA is playing in this campaign -- after all, we know the RGA actually ran more ads than Jon Corzine, so what is the role the DGA is playing?
The reason we don't see DGA-branded advertising is that it is restricted by New Jersey state election law. Governor Jon Corzine is a member of the DGA so ads would not be "independent expenditures." In contrast, Chris Christie is not a member of the RGA (and, cough, cough, hopefully never will be) so it can run legally "independent" ads. The RGA has made a strategic decision to spend heavily to try to keep Christie competitive and to evade the spending limits the Christie campaign faces, though the DGA believes the RGA wasted money in the summer trying to bring down Corzine's numbers. (I guess if you're the one of the 40% on board with Corzine, a few attack ads are not going to discourage you at this point.)
The DGA has made a "different strategic decision," and has instead largely invested in party infrastructure to enable Get Out the Vote (GOTV) efforts. Around $1.5 million have been put into local party efforts. The DGA believes that this strategy will ensure sufficient Democratic voters will turn out, and that Democrats hold a significant advantage over Republicans. Furthermore, they think Daggett's lack of a local party infrastructure will hurt him at the polls. Experts have observed Democrats have a turnout advantage ("In the 2006 election for U.S. Senate, about 7-in-10 registered partisans showed up, but only 1-in-3 unaffiliateds did") but this reflects hard work made possible by major spending.
That's not to imply that the DGA has completely ignored the TV ad wars. They can -- and did -- direct money to independent progressive groups who in turn advertize. You might remember the Mid-Atlantic Leadership Fund's ads last spring, or the New Jersey Progress ads this fall. All in all, the DGFA will spend more than $3 million on the race.
In the May "non-partisan" elections, Democrats lost all three seats for council in Evesham. The result raised many eyes, but the news to come out since may raise a few more.
A June 10 story in the Burlington County Times prompted Evesham Councilman Mike Schmidt, who lost his re-election bid, to call for an investigation into whether recently elected Republicans Kurt Croft, Joe Howarth and Deb Hackman violated laws which prevent "purposely concealing campaign donations."
In addition to the story, which talked about how the GOP outspent the Democrats, Schmidt pointed to a fundraising solicitation for the Croft, Howarth, and Hackman team which requests donors to make contributions to any or all of four continuing PAC's, the Evesham Republican Club, the Evesham Municipal Committee, the Evesham Federation of Republican Women and the Evesham Young Republicans. But there were clear instructions on what you could give and to whom:
*Checks to each account should not exceed $300.
Hmm, how convenient that they get all this money just under the state reporting threshold. But Schmidt, who authored the local pay to play ordinance, pointed to further potential issues:
"Furthermore, $300 is the maximum contribution a candidate for office in Evesham can accept from individuals looking to receive contracts from our government. Therefore, an individual who donated $250 to all four PAC's would be in violation of our local pay to play law. The fact that they specifically asked donors to keep the donation under the reporting limit shows a blatant attempt to conceal the nature of their fundraising efforts."
According to ELEC, the Republican women PAC was created the week before the election. Follow me below the fold for more of the story as late last week, Schmidt officially filed his complaint with ELEC spelling out his allegations.
I knew a guy in the Navy that would sometimes resort to what he called "creative financing". When his money ran out before payday, he'd go to the Food Lion and cash a check for $10 (which he spent on a Subway Cold-Cut-Combo and a twelve-pack of beer) and keep the money. Then next day, he'd go to Albertson's and cash a check for $20, put $10 in his pocket (which he spent on a Subway Cold-Cut-Combo and a twelve-pack of beer) and deposit $10 in his account to cover the original check to Food Lion. The next day, he'd be back at Food Lion, writing a check for $30 - $10 for him (which he spent on a Subway Cold-Cut-Combo and a twelve-pack of beer) and $20 to put in the bank to cover the check to Albertson's.
It was insane, but it worked. All he had to do was keep cashing larger and larger checks until payday, when a new wave of cash would largely get swallowed by his short-term debt. Meanwhile, he had sandwich and beer money that he wouldn't otherwise have. After reading this article I kind of wonder if my friend wasn't a Burlington County Republican. Click on through to the other side.
I think Chris Myers expects to lose his bid to take over the Third Congressional District seat. His ambition, I believe, is really directed at making it to the State Senate.
The Evidence:
August 21 - Myers attacks Adler for state debt.
August 19 - Myers attacks Adler on MOM rail issue - a state transit issue
August 15 - Myers attacks Adler for state fuel taxes and state Department of Environmental Protection.
August 13 - Myers attacks Adler for state fuel taxes.
August 4 - Myers attacks Adler over state police fees.
According to Congressional Quarterly, our own state Senator John Adler was #10 on a list of US House candidates nationally for increasing their cash on hand in the first quarter. The list includes incumbents and challengers of both parties in every race.
10) John H. Adler, Democrat, New Jersey's 3rd District ($1 million cash on hand; increase of $416,000)
Adler, a state senator, is the presumed Democratic nominee for the south-central New Jersey constituency in which 12-term Republican Rep. H. James Saxton is not seeking re-election. Adler got off to an early start that has enable him to build a big fundraising lead over the district's Republican contenders.
For a list of how all New Jersey US House candidates did this year, check out this great chart by Scott W from earlier in the week
A week ago, Kate Whitman's Congressional campaign sent out a prattling press release to announce that her "grassroots" fundraising effort had raised $230,000 in the first quarter of 2008. We won't know exactly what she means by "grassroots" until she actually files her Q1-08 report with the FEC, but her last filing report was dominated by a handful of aristocratic families, some of them willing to dance on the edges of campaign finance law.
So far, Kate Whitman's campaign has pulled in a combined $22,355 from the Hanson and Imperatore families alone. James Hanson is the President and CEO of Hampshire Real Estate Companies, a developer headquartered in Morristown. Five of the ten principals of the company come from one of these two families. They are also major donors to the Blair Academy, where the football field is named "Hampshire Field" after the company.
From these two families, 17 individuals contributed an average of $1,315 each to Kate Whitman's primary campaign. Whitman's filing report indicates that eight of them are employed non-students; of the rest, two are listed as homemakers (read: stay-at-home moms), and seven are students. The eight breadwinners could legally donate no more than $18,400 by themselves, but by spreading their contributions out among family members, including children, the two families were able to contribute an additional $3,955. While this isn't necessarily illegal, it does seem somewhat sleazy. It's effectively the aristocrat's version of wheeling, a practice where contractors exploit a loophole in campaign finance law by funneling money through one or two county party committees to the candidates they support.
The Hanson and Imperatore kids weren't the only ones who ponied up their summer incomes and allowances for Kate Whitman. One Christopher Merton of Pottersville donated $3,000 to the campaign-$2300 for the primary and $700 for the general. His 12/19 donation coincided with a similar $3,000 contribution from Juliana Merton, at the same mailing address in Pottersville. Another $4,600 came from Katrina Courter, daughter of former Congressman James Courter and his wife Carmen. Katrina is married to Taylor Whitman, who is Kate Whitman's brother, and is pursuing a masters in educational psychology at Fordham. In total, Kate Whitman raised $16,805 from just nine students in 2007.
Kate Whitman's campaign isn't grassroots. It's more like silver spoon.
The table below the fold shows donations from members of the Hanson, Imperatore, Merton, and Courter families to Kate Whitman's campaign.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., raised $931,700 during the quarter and had $4.3 million on hand at the end of the year.
* Republican developer Anne Evans Estabrook of Spring Lake, who is challenging Lautenberg, filed her first campaign report showing that from April 25 through Dec. 31 last year, she raised $1.8 million, including $1.7 million in loans from herself, and had $1.5 million at the end of the year.
* Two other Republicans vying for the nomination to run against Lautenberg, state Sen. Joseph Pennacchio of Montville and Ramapo College professor Murray Sabrin, announced their candidacies in January and therefore did not have to file reports this week. Sabrin announced he had exceeded his initial goal of raising $31,000 in the month of January, though he did not say by how much.
Apparently, Frank Lautenberg is not too old to raise the money - and he can probably still cut the mustard, too. Estabrook is pathetic - if you write yourself a $1.7 million check, you haven't "raised" it. I'd say it's a good indication no one - even Republicans - care that she's running. But she's making it difficult for Pennacchio and Sabrin - even if he can raise a whole $32K in a month.
Click on through. More snarkiness with numbers lies ahead.
The Washington Post reports GOP Moderates Weigh Loyalty To Bush vs. Political Realities . The poor "moderates" -- none from New Jersey -- use four letter words to describe their dilemma. Fortunately, the conservative geniuses who thought up the Iraq War have the solution...
leaders again exhorted their rank-and-file to get out and raise money if they do not want to be in an even deeper hole in November 2008.
Deborah Howlett reports that Governor Corzine is calling to strengthen ethics and campaign finance laws and says that may happen during the lame duck session after the election.
Gov. Jon Corzine said today he would propose sweeping legislation on ethics and campaign finance in response to the arrests this week of 11 public officials, including two state lawmakers.
"We are going to deal with it quickly...And it will be a bi-partisan response if I'm reading it correctly," Corzine said.
Among the top priorities will be a "clean-up" of the law Corzine signed earlier this week that outlaws a long-accepted practice in New Jersey of holding two elected offices at the same time, the governor said. He signed a compromise version that allows incumbent lawmakers to keep their local posts.
Corzine also said he would demand bans on campaign finance practices, including "wheeling," a way to skirt contribution limits to individuals, and "pay-to-play," a practice where campaign donations are made with the expectation of gaining an edge in the awarding later of of government contracts.
He's proposed big things like this before, but has been forced to compromise with his own party and settle for half measures. Democratic party chairman Joe Cryan has also called for revisiting some of these laws, so there may be real desire for change among Democrats, but I don't think it's unreasonable to be highly skeptical as we've heard this before.
Fool me once...shame on....shame you. Fool me....you can't get fooled again!
It's the main reason that Republicans were pushing the 12th District as this year's clean elections test case -- and the main reason that state Sen. Ellen Karcher, a 12th District Democrat, was prepared to participate.
The state clean elections selection committee saw things a bit differently. They selected the 14th District as the test case -- a decision that has been criticized as partisan by the GOP.
But the 14th, as I've written elsewhere, has always been the most logical choice.
There is an old song by the Smokey and the Miracles (and The Beatles) that, unfortunately, could be used as the theme song for most politicians: "Money (That's What I Want)".
The fact is, too much of it is coarsing through the veins of the body politic, distorting our priorities and shutting out the average voter.
New Jersey has a vast array of campaign finance laws. The compliance book provided to candidates for public office and others is complicated and filled with nomenclature that few outside the Legislature, the Republican and Democratic Parties, and some election lawyers understand. Despite all the laws on the books including "Pay to Play" reform on the State level and in many municipalities, influence peddling achieved through campaign contributions continues largely unabated. Why? Because of the skirting of campaign finance laws through a process known as "wheeling."
