There's Already a Big Winner in 2010: GOP and Its Secret-Money Allies
3 days ago
The midterm elections are still 2½ weeks away, but one set of 2010 winners can now be declared: monied interests that want to shape the government to their liking.
If you've paid attention to the political back-and-forth of the past week, you know that the Obama White House and the Democratic National Committee have been tussling with Republican operatives Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over whether Rove and Gillespie's political groups and the chamber have been funneling foreign money into House and Senate campaigns to benefit GOP candidates. But foreign money is not the main issue. The problem is that thanks to the Supreme Court's notorious Citizens Uniteddecision (and other rulings), campaign finance reform in this country is virtually dead, and that means any entity with a lot of money -- a corporation, a billionaire, a union -- can pour as much cash as it wants into an effort to rig the political system in its favor. In certain instances it can do so covertly.
In this new order, Wall Street firms and execs can secretly donate millions of dollars to a political group with a meaningless name -- say, Americans for Prosperity and Enterprise -- and that group can blitz a congressional district with hundreds or thousands of ads (misleading or not) blasting a candidate who supports financial consumer protections. And voters would never be told who's behind this assault. Why would any American citizen -- even a Tea Partier -- believe this is good for American democracy? Allowing well-financed players to invade local elections clandestinely -- this is elitism run wild.
President Obama and his White House crew have argued this larger point. But they got bogged down in the debate over their foreign money accusation. Whatever the reason, they have not been able to make this subject a central part of the 2010 elections narrative. It is, as we say in Washington, a "process" matter. And voters, it is widely assumed by the politerati, don't give a you-know-what about process. (They just want small government and Social Security and Medicare and jobs.)
But Washington reporters, too, can be dismissive of such fundamental concerns. At Tuesday'sWhite House press briefing, several journalists gave press secretary Robert Gibbs a hard time about the Democrats' use of the foreign money charge. Gibbs tried to address the overarching problem and described the threat this way:
Equating Obama's private fundraising meetings with the secret funding of campaigns was a stretch. Obama occasionally holds private fundraising sessions, but most are open to media coverage. More to the point, the contributions he raises (for candidates and party-related committees) are disclosed and governed by federal limitations. That's not what's happening with these independent outfits. The Rove/Gillespie groups and two other pro-GOP organizations are planning to spend up to $50 million in the final weeks of the campaign on House races -- the source for much of that money will not be made public.
It's true that Democratic groups could do the same, and they have engaged in similar practices in the past. But it's not happening this year. (Billionaire George Soros, who has funded Democratic-friendly organizations in the past, recently told The New York Times he's sitting out 2010: "I don't believe in standing in the way of an avalanche.") But the recent changes in the law have created bigger and better opportunities for fat cats -- and it's the Republicans who are now exploiting them, leaving the Democrats in the playing-by-the-old-rules dust.
Whether or not the GOPers and their secret-money allies succeed in seizing control of the House and/or Senate, they are blazing the way in deploying big money to pervert the political system. This will give them a leg up in 2012. They are already victors.
UPDATE: As Greg Sargent reports, one recent poll indicates that voters do give a damn about secret outside money in congressional campaigns:
You can follow David Corn's posts and media appearances via Twitter.
If you've paid attention to the political back-and-forth of the past week, you know that the Obama White House and the Democratic National Committee have been tussling with Republican operatives Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over whether Rove and Gillespie's political groups and the chamber have been funneling foreign money into House and Senate campaigns to benefit GOP candidates. But foreign money is not the main issue. The problem is that thanks to the Supreme Court's notorious Citizens Uniteddecision (and other rulings), campaign finance reform in this country is virtually dead, and that means any entity with a lot of money -- a corporation, a billionaire, a union -- can pour as much cash as it wants into an effort to rig the political system in its favor. In certain instances it can do so covertly.
In this new order, Wall Street firms and execs can secretly donate millions of dollars to a political group with a meaningless name -- say, Americans for Prosperity and Enterprise -- and that group can blitz a congressional district with hundreds or thousands of ads (misleading or not) blasting a candidate who supports financial consumer protections. And voters would never be told who's behind this assault. Why would any American citizen -- even a Tea Partier -- believe this is good for American democracy? Allowing well-financed players to invade local elections clandestinely -- this is elitism run wild.
President Obama and his White House crew have argued this larger point. But they got bogged down in the debate over their foreign money accusation. Whatever the reason, they have not been able to make this subject a central part of the 2010 elections narrative. It is, as we say in Washington, a "process" matter. And voters, it is widely assumed by the politerati, don't give a you-know-what about process. (They just want small government and Social Security and Medicare and jobs.)
But Washington reporters, too, can be dismissive of such fundamental concerns. At Tuesday'sWhite House press briefing, several journalists gave press secretary Robert Gibbs a hard time about the Democrats' use of the foreign money charge. Gibbs tried to address the overarching problem and described the threat this way:
Still, the White House correspondents zeroed in on the foreign money claim. When Gibbs noted that "it is hard to understate. . . how much" these outside groups are "impacting some of these elections," CBS News Radio correspondent Mark Knoller blurted, "They're just commercials." He then asked if Obama should stop holding "closed-door fundraisers."I think that a small number of people might write tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in checks to fund and bankroll a campaign or a series of campaign ads in order to defeat certain candidates because they have -- whether it's -- it's not a political ideology; it's: What business do they have in front of the federal government? What regulation are they trying to impact with -- by getting involved in certain Senate races? What's their legislative agenda?
Equating Obama's private fundraising meetings with the secret funding of campaigns was a stretch. Obama occasionally holds private fundraising sessions, but most are open to media coverage. More to the point, the contributions he raises (for candidates and party-related committees) are disclosed and governed by federal limitations. That's not what's happening with these independent outfits. The Rove/Gillespie groups and two other pro-GOP organizations are planning to spend up to $50 million in the final weeks of the campaign on House races -- the source for much of that money will not be made public.
It's true that Democratic groups could do the same, and they have engaged in similar practices in the past. But it's not happening this year. (Billionaire George Soros, who has funded Democratic-friendly organizations in the past, recently told The New York Times he's sitting out 2010: "I don't believe in standing in the way of an avalanche.") But the recent changes in the law have created bigger and better opportunities for fat cats -- and it's the Republicans who are now exploiting them, leaving the Democrats in the playing-by-the-old-rules dust.
Whether or not the GOPers and their secret-money allies succeed in seizing control of the House and/or Senate, they are blazing the way in deploying big money to pervert the political system. This will give them a leg up in 2012. They are already victors.
UPDATE: As Greg Sargent reports, one recent poll indicates that voters do give a damn about secret outside money in congressional campaigns:
I suppose one key question is, how important is this to voters--especially when they are not being asked about it by a pollster? And that's something that is hard to poll.an overwhelming 84 percent say they have a "right to know" who's bankrolling the ads. And crucially, the poll also found that the issue is resonant when linked to the economy. A majority, 53 percent, are less likely to think a candidate who is backed by "anonymous groups" can be trusted to "improve economic conditions" for them or their families. People don't believe these groups are looking out for their interests.
You can follow David Corn's posts and media appearances via Twitter.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario