«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Reform Groups Call On Obama To Change Campaign Finance Laws

Barack Obama has only been President-elect for 36 hours, but seven major government reform groups are already making demands. In a joint press release Thursday morning, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and US PIRG set out a "government integrity reform" agenda for the next Congress. And the groups are using Obama's own words to convince him to adopt their plans, pointing out that Obama campaigned on a promise to "fix Washington." Fixing Washington, they argue, means fixing campaign finance.

The reform groups are calling on Obama to repair the existing presidential public financing system and create a new public financing regimen for congress. But there's one problem: Obama's campaign is largely responsible for the presidential public financing system's collapse. Obama, who initially promised to "pursue an agreement" to opt in to the public financing system, instead became the first candidate to turn down public financing for the general election. That decision allowed Obama to dramatically outraise and outspend John McCain, his Republican opponent. McCain was limited to $84 million in public financing during the general election campaign, while Obama raised over $150 million in September alone. The day after the election, McCain aides cited Obama's spending advantage as one reason their man lost. But Obama did promise to fix the system. "I am firmly committed to reforming the system as president, so that it's viable in today's campaign climate," he said this summer. The reformers are now pushing Obama to make good on that vow.

"Senator Obama in June and then his campaign again just a few days ago made publicly clear that he is committed to fixing the presidential public financing system," says Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21. "We believe that Senator Obama will meet the commitment he made."

The reformers want to close finance "loopholes" such as joint fundraising committees and "hybrid ads", split with the national parties, that allow presidential candidates to circumvent contribution limits. They also want to strengthen the Federal Election Commission, and require candidates to disclose the names of "bundlers" who gather large numbers of donations.

Obama has supported campaign finance reform in the past. He was one of the cosponsors of a bill introduced late last year that would have matched small donations at four times their amount. Such a move would encourage candidates to focus on small donors over fat cats. The law also would have required presidential candidates to participate in the public financing system during the primary election for those candidates to be eligible for public general election funds.

Wertheimer says that reformers are not trying to undermine Obama's success with small donors. "The underlying principle here is to build on the phenomenal success Obama had in raising small donations on the internet. We want to put the small donor in the drivers seat for these campaigns," and "shift the whole focus to the small donor" and away from bundlers who can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in $2,300 donations.

"It's my own view that the extraordinary potential for the internet is the most important long term development for campaign finance that has come out of this election," Wertheimer continues. "Candidates can raise large sums from donations that are not influence seeking, with almost no cost. And it doesn't take [candidates'] time [and] involves citizens in the election." Wertheimer says that updated reform legislation based on the law Obama supported in 2007 will be introduced in the first days of the next Congress.

The reform groups are also calling on Obama to reinforce executive branch ethics rules, close loopholes in public corruption laws, and strengthen their enforcement.

Some Democrats, though, are going to be reluctant to do anything that might cut into the fundraising advantage their candidates had this cycle. Winning political parties often assume that they will always be able to raise more money than the other side. History suggests otherwise. And after all, a promise is a promise.

Photo user from flickr user Jeff Sandquist used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

Obama showed what true public financing is all about. His donor base was incredibly wide and not very deep. Why punish him for including so many people in the election process? He showed how election finance really should work. If there's any need for reform it's only to eliminate the influence of the big donors so whoever's elected is beholden to his/her wide base of small donors and no one else.

Posted by: David H. on 11/06/08 at 2:05 PM Respond

Make the top donation $100. Tiny donations, tiny influence from individual donors. Obama wouldn't be likely to have any big problem with that. Anyone want to bet the rightwing would ever go for that?

Posted by: QrazyQat on 11/06/08 at 9:28 PM Respond

Obama is making the most important appointments of his presidency right now: staffing his 2012 re-election team.

Given the state of the economy by then, they project $10 billion will be needed to secure a second term.

Posted by: quarky on 11/07/08 at 10:49 AM Respond

The public financing system was already underfunded for this cycle when Obama arrived to run, so he can't be faulted for trying to win despite the system.

Also, Mother Jones, why are you putting terms like loopholes, hybrid ads, and bundles in quotes. That's what they are.

You here David H's comment a lot these days, including from Kos, but it's in error. While better than McCain in having more small-donor donors, there were still a whole of lot of bigger ones, and a number of those elite fundraisers that subtract from the total democratic potential.

Posted by: jjee on 11/07/08 at 3:38 PM Respond

I don't agree with equating money with free speech. I also would like to see the socialization of democratic elections. Let them be taxpayer funded, period. And force the private broadcasters, in a fair manner, to give over generous air time to candidates during campaigns.

My monetary donation is 'influence'? Am I supposed to be coopted into the very system in which the big players - corporations and capitalists - will always win by virtue of their deeper pockets? Influence my vote with your arguments, period.

Posted by: Arby on 11/08/08 at 9:36 PM Respond

The presidency should not be "for sale" to the highest bidder. A candidate who flipflops on financing will be a president who flipflops on platform. The election is over. The true test will now come from the discernment that the public, the media and especially the losing political parties demonstrate when Obama goes off course.

To give an example of media disfunctionment, the late Tim Russert of MSNBC contributed to gathering support for the invasion of Iraq during Bush's first term. The losing Democratic Party did not block the agenda of the Bush administration despite the fact that he had been elected on a relatively ISOLATIONIST platform. People were valiantly demonstrating but the media was downplaying it. A lot of what happened under Bush was "allowed" to happen by players other than the president. Bush veered from his pre-announced course. We let him do that.

If a military escalation comes under Obama, will the country vigorously oppose it? or will they simply settle for the empty advertising of the presidential campaign, feeling that they "didn't vote for the obvious hawk McCain" so they'll simply trust in Obama's "judgment" because he was supposedly the more peace-loving of the two. Will we repeat OUR performance and let Obama like Bush before him sink our country into further conflict.
The fact that Obama took money from small donors, too, in no way means that the arms manufacturer weren't backing him as well.

When the French were voting for their president, I predicted that there would be military conflict and casualties in six months if Nicolas Sarkozy got elected. I was wrong. It took a year. This man who -- like Obama -- has never seen military action is willing to send others to lose their lives. I think experientially limited individuals don't weigh the stakes adequately. They are "boyish" in their choices.

I hope I'm wrong this time. I hope the promise of skillful diplomacy does not evaporate into continued war and possibile escalation.

Posted by: kathy giannini on 11/09/08 at 11:33 AM Respond

Its a nice blog.
Thanks.

Posted by: Debt Settlement on 01/08/09 at 1:33 AM Respond