Congressman Resigns; Bribery, Ethics Scandal Brews In Washington

EDITORIAL

Derek Cressman

On December 7, a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge ordered state representative David Burnell Smith to step down from office after finding that Smith was holding office illegally due to violations of the state’s Clean Elections law. If his ouster is upheld, Smith will be the first legislator in the nation to be removed from office for clean elections violations. Smith is appealing the decision.

Arizona’s Clean Elections law requires candidates who qualify for public financing for their campaigns to abide by a spending limit. In addition to underreporting his expenditures, Smith overspent the limit by some 20%.

The case reached the Maricopa County Court only after investigations and hearings by the Clean Elections Commission and two other courts, all of which found that Burnell Smith had violated the Clean Elections law.

Special Election
California voters who went to the polls for the November 8 special election rejected all eight initiatives on the ballot, including redistricting reform initiative Prop 77 by roughly 60% to 40%. Prop 77 was part of a group of four reform initiatives backed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose low ratings helped derail any efforts associated with him.

The special election saw nearly $300 million in spending overall, a national record for an initiative election. Labor spent more than $100 million to tank the propositions backed by Schwarzenegger, who along with his allies spent some $50 million on his four initiatives. The pharmaceutical industry spent $80 million to defeat a consumer group-backed prescription drug initiative and to support a separate initiative put on the ballot by big Pharma. Both initiatives lost.

Clean Money
The Los Angeles City Council agreed on November 15 to examine public financing of elections as a possible way to reduce the influence of special interest money on the city’s elections. The council voted 11-0 to tell the city’s legislative analyst to develop a proposal for public financing of elections for the city. Los Angeles already provides some public funds for qualifying candidates. The San Francisco Ethics Commission is examining whether to extend that city’s current public financing of elections for the Board of Supervisors to other city races, including mayoral elections. Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi has proposed such a program for mayoral races, including a $1.4 million voluntary spending cap for candidates who sign up and qualify for public funds. The Ethics Commission is scheduled to vote on Mirkarimi’s proposal in December. In October of this year, the voters of Albuquerque made it the first city in the U.S. to vote by ballot initiative for public financing of elections. Portland, Oregon’s city council voted in May 2005 to start a program of public financing for elections in that city.

On December 1, the Connecticut Legislature passed a comprehensive campaign finance bill that includes full public financing for state candidates, becoming the first state legislature to pass public financing for its own elections. Governor Jodi Rell signed the bill on December 7.

The bill would provide approximately $17 million overall in public financing for qualifying candidates. To qualify for public financing under the new law, candidates must collect a certain number of signatures and small donations. The threshold amounts and public funds received vary by the office sought:

n House candidates would need to raise $5,000 in contributions of no more than $100, with 90 percent raised within the state, in return for $25,000 in public funds.

n Senate candidates need to raise $15,000 in contributions of no more than $100 with 90 percent raised within the state, in return for $85,000 in public funds.

n Starting in 2010, gubernatorial candidates who raised $250,000 in small contributions would be eligible to receive $1.25 million for a primary race and $3 million for the general election.

Unfortunately, the bill also sets up a higher standard for third parties under the public financing program. Candidates that do not belong to one of the two major parties must collect the same number of dollars and signatures to qualify for the program, but get less money. Public financing is a great way to level the playing field for candidates that represent regular folks to take on those backed by wealthy special interests, but when major parties use a system to advantage themselves over third party candidates, it does a disservice to those voters who don’t see 100% eye-to-eye with the major parties.

In addition to the public financing aspects, the bill also banned contributions from lobbyists and state contractors, and raised the contribution limits for those candidates who do not receive public financing, despite no logical basis for doing so. Gubernatorial limits went from $2,500 to $3,500, state senate limits from $500 to $1,000, while state house limits stayed at $250.

Connecticut Common Cause and Connecticut Citizen Action Group receive a big hand for all the work they put in building support for public financing, as does ConnPIRG for helping to hold the line on contribution limit increases for house races.

Aided by House Speaker Alan Bense and Senate President Tom Lee, who each threw their clout behind the bill, the Florida Legislature approved a bill banning lobbyists from buying any food, drink, or gifts for elected officials. Governor Bush has promised to sign the bill into law, although began to make caveats shortly after the bill’s passage.

Former congressional candidate Adam Taff pleaded guilty in federal district court in Kansas City to one count of wire fraud and one count of violating federal election law for misusing campaign funds to obtain a home loan. In 2003, with the help of his employer, a mortgage company, Taff used $312,000 in campaign funds as collateral to purchase a $1.2 million home. Taff also lied about his monthly income on his application, which when sent to the lender across state lines, resulted in the wire fraud charge.

Taff faces up to 30 years and a $1 million fine for the wire charge, and up to five years and a $250,000 fine for the campaign violation.

The state ethics commission recommended fines and restitution totaling nearly $50,000 in connection with violations of the state’s clean elections law by two candidates and a political consultant. Julia St. James, an Independent candidate for the Senate, paid political consultant Dan Rogers $10,000 of her $40,000 campaign allotment with very little to show for it, in addition to spending campaign funds for non-campaign purposes. The other candidate, Sarah Trundy, also used Rogers for her campaign and is also accused of misusing campaign funds. St. John, Trundy, and Rogers all face fines.

The Mass Ballot Freedom campaign has turned in more than 110,000 signatures to complete the first step of qualifying an initiative that would let political parties cross-endorse candidates of another party. The process, also known as fusion, allows voters more choices in expressing their opinions on election day because they can vote for a candidate who has a chance of winning but do so under the nomination of the party they most support. So, for instance, the now defunct Reform Party could have cross-nominated fiscally conservative Democrats and socially liberal Republicans rather than having to field their own candidates that often played the role of spoiler.

The Working Families Party has used cross-endorsement successfully in New York, where fusion has been legal for more than a century. Party bosses conspired in most other states to kill competition from new parties by banning cross-endorsement.

A Common Cause led effort to qualify an initiative to create an independent redistricting commission fell just short of success. Proponents gathered more than 80,000 signatures, of which some 60,000 were from unique signers. To qualify, an initiative must have 65,825 certified signatures.

The FBI and a grand jury are investigating former gubernatorial candidate Geoffrey Fieger for possible violations of federal election law. Fieger, also known for defending assisted suicide doc Jack Kevorkian, may have reimbursed employees for contributions they made to presidential candidate John Edwards. Some 22 Fieger employees and their relatives donated a total of $42,000 to Edwards on the same day in 2003.

Investigators have found sufficient evidence to prompt Fieger to hire three top Michigan attorneys for his defense. Fieger also faces a state campaign finance investigation by Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox.

A grand jury will convene in January to determine whether state Regent Dave Hergert violated the state’s public financing laws by underreporting his spending.

Nebraska law requires candidates to estimate their spending to determine how much their opponents should get. If a candidate exceeds that estimate, they must notify the Accountability and Disclosure Commission so that their opponent can receive the additional funds. Hergert underestimated his spending by half and failed to disclose it to the Commission. His opponent was not only subjected to attack ads bought with the excess funds, but was deprived of the public funds he might have spent to defend himself.

Hergert has paid some $33,000 in fines to date, but has faced no criminal charges. And when the Nebraska Legislature voted 31-0 to ask him to resign, Hergert refused. Attorney General Jon Bruning stated he has found sufficient credible evidence to charge Hergert with the violation, but preferred the public involvement of the grand jury over filing charges from his office, due to the political nature of the case.

On December 15, James Tobin was convicted of two charges related to phone jamming scheme during the 2002 elections. Tobin, a Bush Pioneer who worked for the Republican National Committee, conspired with Chuck McGee and Allen Raymond to jam the phones of the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote phone banks on Election Day.

McGee, the former executive director of the state Republican Party, has finished a seven-month sentence for the conspiracy. Raymond, the former president of Virginia political consulting firm GOP Marketplace, Inc., faces a five month sentence.

While guilty of charges of telephone harassment, Tobin was acquitted of a charge of violating voters’ rights. He faces up to seven years in prison and a $500,000 fine.

Using funds from his own fortune, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg outspent mayoral election opponent Fernando Ferrer $78 million to $9 million. The $78 million in personal candidate wealth broke the previous record of $75 million, set by Bloomberg in the 2001 mayoral election. In 2001, Bloomberg said of his massive spending that he needed to spend the money to introduce himself to the voters. In 2005, Bloomberg said of his repeat performance: “It is what it is.”

This past year, the city council voted to raise the matching public funds for campaign contributions under $250 from 4:1 to 5:1 – in other words, the candidate gets $5 for every $1 he or she raises in contributions under $250. Bloomberg fought against the change, saying it would unfairly advantage any opponent he faced.

Three Ohio Supreme Court justices disgorged $1,000 campaign contributions that may have been funneled to them by Tom Noe, the Bush Pioneer under investigation by state and federal authorities for a wide array of illegal acts, including reimbursing contributors to Bush. The contributions ostensibly came from Doug Talbott, former aide to Governor Bob Taft, recently convicted for failure to disclose gifts.

Curiously, the justices were informed by state Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett of the possibility that the contributions were actually from Tom Noe. Also curiously, the justices found out about the contributions in the week prior to the November 8 election, but said nothing publicly until after the election. The justices put the money in an account for the Ohio Worker’s Compensation bureau, from which Noe is accused of stealing millions of dollars.

Reform Initiatives Lose
After a spirited campaign, Ohio voters rejected four reform initiatives that dealt with absentee voting, campaign finance, redistricting, and election administration. Campaign reform and absentee balloting had been leading in the polls, but appear to have been defeated due to voter confusion with so many reform questions on the ballot that were subject to some five million dollars in negative attack ads. The losses were a setback for democracy in Ohio, but the support for reform galvanized by the campaign may carry forward to positive results in the future.

Sham Ads
Americans for Job Security, a 501(c)(6) group that has paid for and run last-minute attack ads in elections all over the United States, began to run ads in support of Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Although the ads obviously intend to influence their outcomes of elections, Americans for Job Security is not subject to either contribution limits or disclosure requirements due to its 501(c)(6) status.

Legislators introduced several voting bills for the upcoming session: :

H. 4352 would allow residents to register and vote early at certain libraries and high schools the week before a general election, and would also allow Election Day registration at polling places.

H. 4362 would require the State Election Commission to send postcards to registered voters who didn’t vote in the previous general election, informing those voters where to vote.

H. 4343 would allow a provisional ballot to count regardless of the precinct where it is cast, even if the voter is in the wrong county or precinct. Currently, a provisional ballot counts only if the voter is in the right precinct.

H. 4339 would establish a commission to investigate barriers to registration and voting; investigate error rates and voting machine reliability; review state spending and federal grants related to voting; and propose ways to improve the voting process.

Governor Phil Bredesen called for a special session to strengthen ethics laws to occur immediately prior to the January 10 opening of the regular legislative session. In anticipation of the special session, legislators began crafting a bill that would create an independent ethics commission, increase disclosure and regulation of lobbyists, and reform the state’s campaign finance laws.

The Volunteer State has seen a series of scandals involving money and politicians in the last few months, stemming from a federal sting investigation dubbed “Tennessee Waltz”. Five state legislators have been indicted on bribery and corruption charges, with two resigning from office to date.

The Texas Republican Party cut a deal with a county prosecutor to avoid criminal charges for spending corporate money to influence 2002 state legislative races. In exchange for avoiding prosecution, the Texas GOP agreed to two conditions: 1) not to spend any corporate money even on administrative expenses through December 31, 2007, and 2) to admit that “from an accounting perspective”, the state party had spent corporate money on elections on three separate occasions.

Throughout the investigation, the party insisted that it simply had a different definition of what constitutes “administrative expenses”. Of course, its definition of administration included television ads, on which it spent $1.9 million. The investigation stems from the same contributions that led to the indictment of Rep. Tom DeLay (see federal section).

The Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments on February 28 relating to mandatory campaign spending limits that were set by the Vermont legislature in 1997. TheRestofUs.org is preparing an amicus brief on behalf of reform organizations that will urge the Court to uphold spending limits as a reasonable measure that states can take to protect their democracy and encourage citizen participation in government. Vermont PIRG, which led the effort to enact the limits, is an intervenor in the case and is represented by the National Voting Rights Institute. U.S. PIRG is organizing members of Congress to support Vermont with an additional brief.

Win or lose, this will be an historic case that could have long-standing ramifications upon the future of campaign finance reform. Mandatory spending limits have been consistently supported by strong majorities of Americans as a commonsense approach to making elections more fair by creating a level playing field for candidates.

Former governor and possible presidential candidate Mark Warner broke a one day record for fundraising in the state, hauling in $2.5 million for his political action committee, Forward Together. Warner also held the previous record, set last year when he was governor, at a fundraiser in which he pulled in $2 million. Virginia has no limits on the amount of money candidates and PACs can raise from donors, which has encouraged some, including New York Governor George Pataki, to start PACs in the state.

On December 15, former state Senate president Chuck Chvala was sentenced to nine months in jail and ordered to pay a $5,500 fine for his felony misconduct in office. Chvala used a broad range of undemocratic and corrupt practices, including extorting campaign contributions from lobbyists, using a network of various committees to evade campaign contribution limits, and using taxpayers’ time and dollars to further his own campaign.

Is Doolittle the Next DeLay?

The Back Page:

When Lobbyists Become the Government
It’s getting harder to tell the difference between special interests who lobby the government to enrich themselves at public expense and the government itself.

Lobbyists now use campaign contributions to get friendly politicians elected and then hire the staff of those politicians to work as lobbyists. Politicians take positions that benefit special interests in order to get the campaign cash that keeps them in office and then cash out by becoming lobbyists themselves after leaving office.

Lobby reform and revolving door restrictions may help, but the real solution is to create an electoral system that allows true public servants to run competitively against candidates that work hand in hand with big money.

Cartoon by RJ Matson, St. Louis Post Dispatch.