An Opportunity for Campaign Finance Reform
Yesterday’s NJ detailed how developers (with multiple companies) could legally contribute multiple times to a candidate:
The practice of companies tied to one developer each contributing the maximum contribution gives the developer greater influence in the election process than other donors who don’t have separate companies to funnel contributions through.
“It’s an outrageous loophole for developers. It makes a mockery of the limits,” said James Browning, regional director of state operations with Common Cause advocacy organization. “It’s a double standard for developers. How can you trust in a system where so few people can buy so much access?”
Governor Markell’s campaign is shown as specifically knowing about this loophole and in making sure that their contributors knew of it too:
“If someone owns less than 50% of an entity, then the entity may give up to $1,200 AND the individual may separately give $1,200,” according to the memo sent by Brian Quinn, then Markell’s campaign finance director, to “supporters/potential supporters of Jack Markell.”
In addition to the contributions Markell received from development companies tied to Zimmerman and Heisler, both also contributed the maximum amount allowed for individuals.
No one is accusing the Governor or his campaign of doing anything illegal here — and the Zimmerman case (like Tigani’s) is a potential problem of illegal reimbursements for campaign contributions. But this is a well known, well exploited and completely unnecessary loophole for developers (what other industries have multiple LLCs working out of the same space?). And no one will argue that developers have an outsized influence over politics here — one that leaves the government weakening or ignoring its own good sense regulations on traffic, environmental impact, even density.
For most of the political junkies who read DL, this isn’t much of a revelation. But how to fix it? Potential options:
- Public financing of campaigns. Optimal maybe (and I’m still not certain of this), but highly unlikely.
- Public financing of campaigns NYC-style — campaigns accept spending limits, but they get a 6-1 public match of the small dollar funds they raise. This approach encourages candidate to engage with grassroots voters, rather than the corporate spenders.
- Better disclosure of LLC participation — to allow for better check on where money is coming from.
- Your solutions? Let us know in the comments.
Tags: Campaign Finance, Jack Markell
I don’t know much about campaign contributions, and maybe I’m a bit naive, but if you can’t ever be eligible to vote, you shouldn’t be able to contribute to a campaign. E.g. you have to be a _real live person_ to donate. Corporations aren’t people, Mitt, and corporations don’t get to cast a ballot. If we only allow a $1,200 donation from individuals and $0 from corporations, I think that would go a long way towards leveling the playing field. Then, anyone who wanted to win additional influence would have to give TIME knocking on doors and making phone calls for a candidate. I can’t imagine Zimmerman roving around the ‘hood getting the vote out.
The limits in the Delaware campaign law of $600 for districts and $1000 for state wides have not been increased for at least 50 years. In real dollars $600 probably is less than $100. The Federal Law is about $2500 for individuals. unlike Delaware you can accept contributions for a primary even if you don’t have one thereby raising the effective federal limit to about $5000 for individuals. Federal law doen’t permit cororate contributions to individual candidates. I think a reasonable solution would be to adopt the federal no corporate requirement while at the same time raising individual limits to say a more realistic $1500 for individuals and $2500 for statewides
@DEevol — I like restricting campaign contributions to those eligible to vote only. But since the courts have been convinced that money is speech, I doubt we could get away with that.
@sisyphus — I’ve heard others make the case for raising the individual campaign contribution limit here. But I wonder about adopting the Fed regulation against corporations contributing, especially in a state where there may be more corporations than people. More seriously, I also wonder if that pushes corporate money into PACs where there may be less visibility of donors.
I have trouble with this one, always, because I recognize that I respond to several conflicting (and undoubtedly) inconsistent dynamics.
1. I don’t agree that money is speech; even if it were, I believe that the First Amendment protects the rights of individuals, not corporations, and not even necessarily other organizations like unions or PACs. I realize that this puts me at odds with the supremes and a lot of other folks. I actually think there needs to be a constitutional amendment declaring that corporations are not specifically protected under the 1st or 14th Amendments.
2. I’m not a fan of publicly funded elections, either, however, because I think they give the illusion of leveling the playing field (at least within American society) without actually doing so.
3. I think it is possible to argue that, if money is not speech, then nobody should be able to purchase a disproportionate amount of influence on or for a candidate just because they happen to be wealthier. Reasonable (who decides? there is always the rub) campaign donation limits seem like a good idea. Here would be my druthers for, say a DE State Senate race (I made up the figures just to show the pattern).
From any registered voter who resides in the district of the election: $1,000
For anybody who lives in Delaware outside the district or non-registered individual who resides in the district: $400
For anybody living elsewhere in the United States or American citizens living abroad: $100
Maximum allowed from ALL non-individual contributors [PACs, unions, party committees, etc.] combined: $2,000
4. All contributions to be made to THAT candidate for THAT campaign only. Come up with a mechanism to require donation of excess. Eliminate raising money after the campaign after it is over; any debts run up by an authorized campaign committee for the candidate become his/her personal debts at the end of the race, win or lose, and must be discharged before the individual can file for office again.
Given that all these points don’t work together, you get the drift of my schizophrenia.
Steve—- a constiutional amendment!!!!!! The congress can’t pass any bill. In a much more friendly world we couldn’t get the Equal Rights Amendmedment ratified and that was with an extra 5 year extension. With regard for your shopping list for the state legislature either you’re totally delusional or somebody sent you a big bag of that great colorodo weed. the legislature does nothing even to its slight disavantage particularly when it comes to election. They recently exempted public review any of their correspondance with state agencies under FOIA. They snicker at the idea of an independent re apportionment committee. They’ll like what I’ve suggested increased contribution limits in exchange for eliminating corporate contributions which likely will be more of a concern to the republicans.Since the limits havent been raised in 50 years there certainly should be merit fordoing so
How about holding candidates accountable for their campaign finance reports and actually enforcing a consequence for not filing. Not all campaign problems come from anonymous donations from big corporations, but from more local candidates feeling they have no obligation to be accountable to the voting public and having no fear they will be called to pay for giving the system the finger.
OK, I hate to be the one to stand up for developers, but there’s nothing special in the law or regs that allow developers to bundle or maximize contributions over another industry. They’re certainly very prolific practitioners of this type of politics, but aren’t the only ones doing it. The NJ article was a very vague piece of reporting and didn’t point the finger where it should have. They had some juicy details about Zimmerman and Tigani and a few other examples and put it all in the blender without making some important distinctions.
The real problem lies with our incorporation laws and the secrecy they allow. If I were a wealthy donor, I could create 20 different LLCs today, put different friends and family members down as the majority owners, and use them to give the maximum 20 different times. That’s not all that far from what Tigani did, using employees to channel his contributions through – he just didn’t do it in the approved legal manner.
It’s also not clear, to me at least, that anyone can really enforce the existing laws and make sure that each corporation really is majority owned by a different person. Does Elaine Manlove’s staff have special authority to pierce Delaware’s veil of corporate secrecy and gain access to that information?
What’s really needed is corporate disclosure overhaul – requiring officers and directors and majority owners to be identified in public records, requiring a local phone number, and putting some breaks on the registered agent business that allows a mail drop to represent Fortune 500 firms. None of that will ever happen because our budget is too inextricably tied to the corp fees and no one wants to kill the goose, but someone in the GA needs to call BS on this secrecy shit.
=============
As for Steve’s point 3, I disagree with lower donation limits for people outside of the legislative district. That puts the power in the hands of the few people in a given district who can afford to donate that max. If I’m a progressive running in a very conservative district with lots of RWNJ businessmen, for example, my opponent has a built-in advantage. It would make candidates kowtow to the local power brokers more so than they already do.
Also re: Steve’s list:
I do like your point about doing something with the excess and disallowing rollover or existing beyond the campaign. There are a few campaign committees still on the books that just serve as the charitable wing of a retired politician’s operations, donating leftover cash to friendly local charities. No one’s doing the checking to make sure those nonprofits aren’t then hiring the former politician’s niece, and none of that takes the original donor’s intent into account. These aren’t slush funds.
I of course meant to write “putting some BRAKES” on the registered agent biz.
Sussex watcher–you’re as bad as steve–bitching about and proposing solutions that have a zero chance of passing the general assembly. Rather than worry about changing del corporation law, focus on prohibitting corporations from contributing to district and state wide elections. If the people who represent “good government”supported an increase in campaign limits in exchange for eliminating corporate contributions, I think you would find support from the governor, the legislature.
focus on prohibitting corporations from contributing to district and state wide elections.
I don’t see how this is going to get any more support from the local political class than any of the other ideas discussed here. We’re talking about getting politicians to interrupt their habit of putting their thumbs on the scale for their own benefit, so whatever gets proposed is going to have a very tough row to hoe.
That said, I think that Steve’e point 1 is right on target. Money isn’t speech, since you can certainly go stand on a street corner and make your case for whatever even if you are dead broke. Money is an amplifier of speech, though, but no one has any entitlement to the amplification.
I go back and forth over public financing of elections. Mostly I hate the idea. But if public financing was available in a fair formula (and I like NYC’s formula) to all candidates it might make sense. Because NYC’s formula depends upon how much you can raise from grassroots voters — so it is entirely possible for an independent or 3rd party candidate to be really competitive.
Just to be clear: when I wrote my comment I was not suggesting changes that I thought would happen, I was brainstorming ideas that I would like to see happen.
I agree that the political class will never rein itself in, which is inherently the reason this discussion will remain academic.
AGovernor is right that the Department of Elections could police compliance with their own reporting deadlines a lot better. Wonder if changing the reporting frequency — maybe once per month — would make any difference?
Dmcrts r crks, pln and smpl.
Cassandra- baby steps. I do believe with the support of ” good government” and the press the legislature {at least the democrats} would support prohibitting corporate contributions in exchange for higher personal limits. Focus on the doable.
“Democrats are crooks, plain and simple.”
And yet Republicans are so odious to the people of Delaware that they would rather vote for known crooks than give the keys to the Republicans again.
Quite the bang-up job you’ve done for your party in your political career, Mike.
“focus on prohibitting corporations from contributing to district and state wide elections.”
Look at any legislator’s finance reports. Typically they have a ton of large corporate donations and a smaller assortment of individual ones. If you think the GA as currently constituted is going to give up guaranteed contributions, and that their donors are going to give up the secrecy that they now have, in exchange for allowing slightly bigger checks to be written, you’re crazy. (And you’re an asshole. Which, coming from me, an out and proud asshole, says a lot.)
“Wonder if changing the reporting frequency — maybe once per month — would make any difference?”
Yes, it would. And campaigns ought to be required to file daily reports, online, for the 10 days preceding thr election, and be barred from accepting anything the day before or the day of the election. End the practice of last-minute contribs that the public doesn’t see until months after. Sunlight as the best disinfectant and all that.
But those old-time candidates who still file handwritten copies and keep records in a ledger book will bitch & moan and block such a move.
I think FWIW, campaigns should represent the constituency. A buck per voter(person). With census data, if your district has 11,208 people, you are allowed to spend that much. A national run–fine 300 million, a state– 850,000. Show us your creativity, responsiveness and resourcefulness with that, instead of who has the bigger sign, or can afford more airtime. Personally, I think it’s vulgar the money dumped in these things, when I have to pay the tab of 600+ bucks to get my kid vaccinated to start school, because of those less generous federal regulations and guidelines.
Most of the campaigns here are still volunteer-driven, and daily reporting is probably a pretty big burden. Monthly reporting shouldn’t be a problem, especially since it is easy enough to record what you need and upload it to the site. I can’t see restrictions on when campaigns could take money meaning much — you can still collect checks and deposit them before or after the window.
They knew. Don’t kid yourselves. As the great Ozzie Myers once said….”Money talks, bullshi* walks”. “Nuff said?
FWIW. Candidates create sound bite campaigns because that’s apparently what the electorate responds to. Impugning or touting a candidates character, experience, etc. works. Policy ideas, solutions, and proposals requires data, information, and analysis. The economics of reaching the greatest number of voters with the simplest possible message has reduced campaigns to the former leaving the voters with almost no knowledge of the latter.
Now the electorate could demand something different or even do their own research and analysis, but very few do. It may be a cultural construct of a “fast food” society, the trials of daily living leaving little time for homework on the issues, or just plain weariness.
Even events like debates are watched primarily by those who allegiance is already given resulting in a sporting event that is marked by points scored and is concluded with “who won.”
The dearth of critical thinking practiced by the electorate results in campaigns almost devoid of any meaning or content.
Recall past get out the vote campaigns that consisted of a single word “Vote!” Not “Study the issues and then Vote!” or anything else, just “Vote!” Pull the lever. Doesn’t matter for what or for whom or anything else, just pull the lever.
I wish that at a minimum, every citizen had to pass the same test as naturalized citizens have to pass. Citizenship is hard and when we buy the fast food version of citizenship it has a similar effect to that which occurs when we consume nothing but fast food versus eating healthy.
@Cassandra look up the reporting by the local Wilmington candidates. I am not sure more frequent reporting would help some of those who currently hold office to be in compliance.
@AGovernor, I think that increased frequency of reporting adds to the sunlight (and gives those interested some time to evaluate what they see), but compliance will always be a problem as long as the DoElections doesn’t do what they are supposed to do.
The has been some great comments here already, but I think we need to take this battle to the State level. Not through state legislation though. Our founding fathers gave us two avenues to get a constitutional amendment. One through congress, (Laugh along with me) and the other through the states via Article V convention. Congress won’t fix this problem for us, but there is still a democracy at the state level. When 34 states call for a convention we can propose an amendment and restore our democracy.
Just my 2 cents
@Cassandra, but if they don’t comply there is no light for those of us interested. Then we have to lodge a complaint to make the Dept of Elections do their job. Why? Why? do we always have to point out someone isn’t doing their job in order for it to be done?