House leadership cancelled a scheduled vote last week on a bill to create an Office of Congressional Ethics which would, for the first time, provide for independent enforcement of congressional ethics rules.

The vote was canceled for lack of majority support and calls into question those members who, as candidates, told voters they will work hard to clean up the corruption in Washington.

The recent indictment of Rep Rick Renzi (AZ) provides fresh evidence of the breakdown of ethics oversight in the House of Representatives.  Despite the reminder of the failed ethics enforcement process, members of Congress picked apart a thoughtful proposal that has been a year in the making with input from numerous academics and ethics experts, state ethics commissions, advocacy groups, and former and current members of Congress.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi who supports the proposal has indicated that she will bring it back for a vote as early as this week.  This proposal would substantially change the way in which allegations of ethics violations are handled in the House.  It would send a clear message to members that the rules will be enforced.

Just prior to a hearing on the bill, a troubling story was published in Congress Daily.  The story detailed a threat by senior Republican staff members to use the new system to target 10 Democrats for ethics violations if this proposal was passed. If these staff members have credible evidence of real ethic violations then it is their responsibility to file them irrespective of any legislative debates.  If, on the other hand, they are simply partisan attacks created to frighten members from pursuing stronger ethics enforcement then it amounts to, in the words of one member of Congress, “political extortion.”

It was disgraceful and highly effective.

The objections that followed showed a lack of understanding of both the details of the proposal and the underlying problem.  Several member including Minority Leader John Boehner (OH), Task Force member Lamar Smith (TX) and Rules Committee Member Jim McGovern (MA) and many others see the problem only as one of public perception.

During a hearing on the bill on Wednesday, only three members of Congress – Reps. Chris Murphy (CT), Zach Space (OH) and Chris Shays (CT) recognized the inherent conflict of interest that exists in the current process in which members – friends and colleagues – are responsible for initiating investigations into one another’s’ actions. 

In the upcoming floor fight, members will not vote against the ethics proposal outright.  Instead members in both parties are threatening to hide behind a vote to block a procedural motion to bring the bill to the floor.  This parliamentary game playing only serves to further the cynicism regarding Congress in the minds of the public.

The public needs to know that a vote against bringing the bill to the floor for a vote is the same as voting against the bill itself.  The practical result is exactly the same.

A year ago this month I blogged on the need for an independent ethics enforcement arm for Congress.  It has taken that long for the Speaker’s special task force to put together something that would have an impact and pass Congress.  The proposal recently introduced by the Chair of the Speaker's special task Force, Rep. Michael Capuano, represents a meaningful step toward fixing the broken and discredited House ethics process. 

I maintained back then -- and still do -- that this problem was not unique to one party or the other but inherent to the current system.  We have had a change in leadership and stronger ethics rules were adopted but the will and ability to enforce the new rules remains a complete joke.  Putting aside for a moment the tougher role of enforcing the new rules, consider the committee’s ability to simply interpret them.

Example: the new rules strike a blow at the lavish parties that lobbyists throw at political conventions to honor members of Congress – absent legitimate policy arguments, special interests court key legislators with food and drinks to push their niche interests.  The new rules state that lobbyists can no longer throw these shindigs to honor a member of Congress.  The House ethics committee, following its not so very proud tradition of seeking end runs around ethics rules, interpreted the law to prohibit only parties that honor a single legislator.  If two or more lawmakers are honored then the rules do not apply.  It would be laughable if it were not so incredibly shameful.

The most recent proposal is not perfect but it would significantly change the way in which ethics complaints are initiated and handled.  A new independent Office of Congressional Ethics would end the partisan gridlock that has stymied legitimate ethics investigations.  Disclosure of the activities of the ethics office will end the secrecy that has been a hallmark of the Congressional ethics committee and increase accountability for those who break the rules.

The new rules are laudable but their promise to exact significant change here in is only as good as the ability to enforce them.  Violators have little to fear under the current system which closely resembles a firing squad standing in a circle.  The result has been years of bipartisan détente and little accountability.

Specifically the proposal would:

• Establish an independent Office of Congressional Ethics run by a six member board with the power to file complaints and initiate its own investigations into allegations of wrongdoing.  

• Protect board members against arbitrary and partisan efforts to remove them if they take up allegations against members that are either politically embarrassing to one side or the other or involve powerful individuals.   

• Establish timetables and deadlines for acting on ethics complaints and making public any findings of investigations.  

• Assure that the Office is able completes investigations.  

• Make virtually all of the work of the new Office available to the public.

The proposal could be strengthened by giving board members access to subpoena power to compel witnesses to come before the board.  But it represents an important step toward cleaning up the mess in .  Congress should vote on this proposal quickly and start the process of restoring integrity to the ethics process in the House.

Unless changes are made nationally or in the states, significant numbers of voters are likely to face unnecessary and troubling obstacles to participating in next year’s election and in future elections.  There are numerous examples of election administrators purging qualified voters from the voter rolls because of faulty or incomplete information. Students in several states are not permitted to vote where they attend school.  In Florida, a law that placed new burdens and the threat of massive fines on citizen sponsored registration efforts led the League of Women Voters to abandon their registration drives for the first time in approximately 70 years.  That law is being challenged in court, but similar laws been adopted in Ohio, New Mexico and elsewhere.  These incidents demonstrate the extent to which some will go to try and manipulate the process. 

Several important changes can be adopted by the federal government and states in time for the 2008 general election.

Don’t drop eligible voters from the rolls

States should have clear standards for cleaning the voter rolls that do not leave eligible voters unregistered on Election Day.  Voters who do not immediately respond to a mailing or miss a single election should not purged from the registration list.  Voters dropped from the rolls should be notified with enough time to ask that their registration be restored when a mistake has been made.  Rules are spelled out in the National Voter registration Act, but many states are not following the rules.

Allow all citizens to vote where they live

Citizens who move to a new location in time register are allowed to vote in the new locale.  There are no residency requirements.  That is, with the exception of college students. In far too many communities, students are not allowed to vote where they attend school despite the fact that they make a 4 year commitment to the community.  There is no reason that students should be automatically barred from participating in elections in the communities where they live.

Prevent excessive waits at the polls

Election administrators should determine how many voting machines are needed in each polling location based on objective criteria that allocates machines evenly.  In the 2006 election, certain polling locations had fewer machines per capita than others.  It appears decisions about machine allocation were made based on party affiliation rather than number of voters. The unfair distribution left voters in less-favored precincts with very long lines.  The excessive wait times – some several hours long -- discouraged voters from casting a ballot.

Ensure poll workers have the tools and information to ensure a smooth and accurate election

Local administrators have cited a lack of resources as a critical reason for difficulties in recruiting and properly training poll workers.  In many places, not malice but understaffed polling locations and ill trained workers play a significant role in the problems of recent elections. Changes in technology and policy create confusion and keep many eligible voters from voting. 

Congress should recognize that it is time for the federal government to help fund federal elections  -- it is the original unfunded mandate.

Encourage newly eligible voters to register

In an election year, administrators should send registration forms to newly eligible voters including those who recently turned 18 and those who recently moved into the state or locality. 

Have backup if the machines breakdown

No voting system is perfect.  Machines break down.  In precincts that do not use a paper ballot, there should be emergency paper ballots available for voters seeking to cast a ballot while measures are taken to correct any problems.

Don’t create roadblocks to registration

Civic groups and others regularly sponsor voter registration drives in communities across the country.  Millions of eligible voters are registered each election through these drives.  These drives should be allowed to register people without unnecessary roadblocks or threats of retribution for minor mistakes.  Local registrars should not have to be present at every registration event and offices must not be allowed to deny registrations simply because they were collected during a registration drive or for nonmaterial markings on the registration forms.

Have established rules for counting all ballots

Registration lists are not always accurate and up to date.  Recognizing that fact, Congress included in the Help America Vote Act the requirement that voters not found on the rolls be allowed to cast a provisional ballot.  However, states and counties within a single state have differing rules for counting provisional ballots.  The hodgepodge of rules means that a voter’s ballot may or may not be considered valid depending not upon eligibility but upon the location in which it was cast.  There should be one set of standards to ensure that all ballots are treated fairly.

Allow people to register on Election Day and develop systems for automatic registration

A proven solution to many of the registration problems listed above is to allow voters to register on Election Day.  Several states have successfully implemented Election Day registration (EDR) and have workable models for other states to follow.  None of the states with EDR report increases in voter fraud or administrative problems that have kept others from moving ahead with this reform.  In several studies, EDR has been credited with significant increases in citizen participation.

Additionally, we should catch up to other democracies around the world and institute a system of automatic registration.  Bureaucracy loves paperwork, but it is time consuming, expensive and unnecessary.  Rather than have separate forms, voters should be registered to vote (unless they choose not to) when they get a driver’s license, pay taxes, receive a library card or interact in any number ways with the government.

In short, voting rules should favor the voter rather create “gotcha” opportunities for administrators to deny otherwise eligible voters from participating.

Nationally, a public that is sharply divided politically agrees that elections should be fair and accurate.  Following the 2000 election, a Gallop poll found that 67% of the public had little or no confidence in the nation’s vote counting.  While recent polls may show that fears have abated somewhat, there is still reason enough to question the integrity of our elections.

Election night mishaps that brought unwanted national attention to certain states coupled with the recent election of several new reform minded Secretaries of State provide a new opening for reform.  Given the prospect of another tightly contested national election, key policy makers and election officials are looking for ways to ensure that they have practices in place to safeguard against embarrassment and ridicule.   We can take advantage of the current climate to work with policy makers to implement some changes in the near term that offer the public some improvements for this election as well as more systemic changes for implementation in the future.

September 26, 2007

We write to strongly urge your support for an amendment to the FY2008 Defense Appropriations bill sponsored by Senators James Webb (VA) and Claire McCaskill (MO).  The amendment establishes critical oversight for contracts awarded for work on Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Recent high profile media reports regarding wartime contractors have uncovered disturbing information regarding waste, fraud, and abuse of public funds.  

• A senior military official is quoted in the Washington Post today calling the recent incident involving the private security contractor Blackwater “a nightmare” and went on to say that “this is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we're trying to have an impact for the long term.”

• The U.S. Government Accountability Office reported last December that the military is losing millions of dollars because it can not monitor private contractors in remote locations.

• Earlier this year, the Defense Audit Contract Agency raised its estimate of fraud and abuse in Iraqi reconstruction projects from $3.5 billion to more than $10 billion.

The mounting evidence of extensive waste, fraud, and abuse of federal dollars awarded to private contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan must be fully investigated and those responsible held accountable.  The current mechanisms for oversight are woefully inadequate.  Our troops and the American people deserve better.

The Webb-McCaskill amendment is an essential, common-sense answer to the growing number of reports of misconduct by private contractors involved in these missions.  The amendment creates a bi-partisan commission modeled after the highly successful Truman Commission that investigated waste, fraud and abuse during World War II. 

The amendment would establish an eight member bipartisan panel to:

(1)   review contracts for reconstruction efforts and logistical support for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan;

(2)   review contracts involving security and intelligence functions in Iraq and Afghanistan;

(3)   strengthen the role of the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction; and

(4)   assign the Special Inspector General, working in coordination with the Commission, the responsibility to perform audits of contracts awarded for work in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

U.S. PIRG applauds the leadership of Senators Webb and McCaskill in offering this critical amendment.  This simple step is essential to any meaningful accountability among federal contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We encourage you to call for a vote on the amendment and to vote for it when it comes to the Senate floor.

Sincerely,

Democracy Advocate

It took guilty pleas on corruption charges from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham and Bob Ney.  It came after Justice Department investigations of Reps. William Jefferson, Rick Renzi and John Doolittle and Sen. Ted Stevens.  The 110^th Congress finally passed comprehensive lobby reform.  They did it just before they left ofr August recess.

The bill that passed the House and Senate in the final week before its August recess represents the most sweeping reforms to the congressional rules since the Watergate era. 

For far too long, lobbyists for powerful interests have spent whatever it might cost to gain special access to lawmakers.  Paying for meals, gifts, tickets to sporting events and trips, lobbyists curry favor with key legislators in ways the rest of us could never afford.  The “ K Street ” crowd, so named for the cluster of lobby firms located on a single street, has also provided enormous help in raising the $2.8 billion dollars that was spent in the last congressional election. And most of this was done behind the public’s back.

During the last election congressional approval reached historic lows and sagging poll numbers suggest that the 110th Congress has a long way to go to win back the public trust.  The public has developed a healthy skepticism regarding how Congress will handle the war, healthcare, energy policy and a host of other priorities.  That said, meaningful changes to the rules aimed at ratcheting down the money culture in Washington are an important step forward.  We may not be able to stop the truly corrupt, but we can define and ban corrupting behavior.  It should not be acceptable or commonplace for lobbyists to wine and dine our representatives to line their pockets and for their clients’ gain. 

The reform measure will soon be sent to the President for his signature.  He has expressed “serious concerns” with the bill, but he should set aside those concerns and sign it.   The bill challenges the pay-to-play culture in Washington and opens the door on the previously secretive practices of lobbyists.  The bill bans gifts and travel paid for by lobbyists and requires members to pay their own way for the use of private jets.  Once these changes are put in place, lobbyists would no longer be able to pay for lavish parties at the national political conventions.  The bill mandates the disclosure of the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars that lobbyists raise for candidates and for the first time establishes accountability for earmarks – funding for pet projects that legislators insert into bills.

The legislation is not perfect and critics will cite shortcomings, but the new rules and increased transparency of lobbying activities will take our democracy out of the darkness.  The mandates in the bill to post information on the Internet bring the government into the 21^st century. The new rules require information to be available so that it can be scrutinized by constituents, the press, political allies and opponents, and government watchdogs.  It will allow all of us to get a more complete picture about the actions of lobbyists and their relationships with our elected officials.

Members of Congress do not tighten the rules that govern their own actions easily or willingly.  One would have to go back to the Watergate era to find the last time Congress overhauled rules to this degree.  It took widely publicized scandals, a frustrated electorate and a few members, like Senators Reid (NV), Obama (IL), Feingold (WI) and Lieberman (CT) and Representatives Pelosi (CA), Emanuel (IL) and Van Hollen (MD) to push colleagues to include more than cosmetic changes. 

This bill does not solve the all the problems created by money in politics.  Candidates for Congress and the White House will likely raise and spend $3 billion in next year’s election.  Most of that money will come in large contributions from wealthy and powerful interests who “max out” on what individuals are legally permitted to give.  To address these issues, we must reconsider how we fund political campaigns.

Nor does the bill include an independent panel to enforce the new rules.  Congress must address that shortcoming when they return.

The bill does strike at unacceptable practices that unduly influence decisions in Washington. It provides for greater disclosure of what happens in the nation’s capitol and more accountability of our elected officials.  It is a welcome change that is long overdue.

They say that in the presidential campaign of 1920 then-Senator Warren Harding campaigned without ever leaving his front porch.  A simpler time?  Perhaps, but the campaign also introduced the first-ever radio broadcast of a political ad and changed the nature of campaigning forever.

Today, a run for office takes enormous resources to pay, in large part, for the battle on the airwaves.  That means a candidate must have either personal wealth – think Michael Bloomberg’s potential independent run for the presidency – or access to a network of wealthy donors.  Candidates themselves spend far too much time dialing for dollars instead of talking to voters, but to successfully compete in today’s political environment one must enlist the help of “bundlers.”  These volunteer fundraisers tap their own lists of wealthy friends and significantly broaden the base of support upon which a candidate can rely.  The Internet may be an exciting new way to reach out to potential supporters, but the unfortunate reality is that the big money still requires the personal touch and no credible candidate can raise the necessary campaign cash without them.

According to a new website created by Public Citizen, whitehouseforsale.org, there are at this point in the presidential campaign more than 1,800 bundlers.  Dennis Kucinich and Sam Brownback may have dedicated supporters on the left and right flanks of the electorate, but with no bundlers the prospects of competing financially are remote.  On the other hand, Clinton, Obama, Romney and Giuliani collectively have 845 bundlers and far more in their campaign bank accounts. 

Bundlers to the Obama campaign are not recognized until they have raise at least $50,000.  The Clinton campaign has asked bundlers to raise $1 million.  Under current law, the names and fundraising totals of bundlers are not disclosed. The information on the whitehouseforsale.org website was gathered through voluntary disclosure and various press reports.  All that is required is for a campaign to disclose the individual contributions of donors which is limited to $2,300 per election.  This grossly understates the “contribution” bundlers make to a campaign and provides the public with an incomplete picture of who is building access through their fundraising activities.

As Congress considers lobby and ethics reform legislation in the coming week, they must include a strong provision to mandate the disclosure of bundlers.  As it stands, the new disclosure requirement will be limited to those who are federally registered lobbyists and not all bundlers for congressional campaigns.  The CEO of the American League of Lobbyists (yes, the lobbyists have an association that lobbies on their behalf) has said the organization will not fight the new disclosure rule but it should include all bundlers rather than single out one specific group.  

To ensure that there is a full and accurate public picture of campaign fundraising, the bundling provision must ensure that there are no loopholes in the definition of what constitutes “bundling” and that the information is easily and clearly accessible to the public.  One completely ineffective proposal required disclosure only of those who physically collected checks and personally handed them over to the campaign.  That would allow anyone who used the telephone and the postal service to evade disclosure.

Additionally, there must be explicit direction regarding who is covered by the disclosure requirement, the type of information to be made available and how it is to be displayed and accessed.  Congress must not pass legislation that is disclosure in name only – information that is collected and held by a public agency that is for all practical purposes inaccessible to the public.  The Internet is a powerful tool and should be used to its full benefit.

If Congress passes this landmark legislation it would open the door to a previously secretive world of campaign financing and access building that favors the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of the rest of us.  It would shine a light on practices that have, in the past, been done with a wink and a nod but are now tracked in campaign databases with the most successful players credited and rewarded.  Let’s hope they get it right.

In its last week of the current term, the U.S. Supreme Court released a pair of disappointing decisions that afford less First Amendment protection to the words of a student protester than to the dollars spent to evade the ban on corporate interference in our elections.  Apparently, in the opinion of a majority of the justices, a banner unfurled during a school field trip poses a greater threat to our democracy than the infusion of millions of special interest dollars into next year’s and future presidential and congressional campaigns.

The 5 to 4 split decision in F.E.C. v. Wisconsin Right to Life strikes down an important provision of the four year old McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. 

Since President Theodore Roosevelt, corporations have been prohibited from spending money from their general revenues on elections.  Shareholder used to promote political viewpoints without explicit consent coupled with the fear of the corrupting influence of special interest money was enough for courts to uphold the ban for over a century.  To engage in elections, these entities are entitled to establish political action committees which, since the 1970s, have had to raise money according to certain rules like contribution limits and disclosure requirements.  The idea is to develop a set of rules that level the playing field for all who participate.

The problem with the ban on direct spending was that political consultants increasingly found ways around it.  Under the guise of so-called “issue ads” powerful interests would air commercials that avoided words and phrases like “vote for” or “vote against” a particular candidate. Ads ran during the final days of the election that clearly promoted or attacked a candidate but stopped short of using what were considered the “magic words.”  The ambiguity of the rules allowed for widespread abuses.

The McCain-Feingold law removed the loophole and the ambiguity.  The law established a bright line test that stated if you name a candidate in a broadcast ad within a narrow window before an election then the ad is presumed to be electioneering.  The provision did not ban views and opinions from being expressed, speakers would simply have to pay for the ads using the same fundraising rules that others followed.  It was a practical, effective and, until this week, constitutional solution.

The decision does not strike at the core of the campaign finance law.  It did not challenge the ban on soft money contributions to political parties.  Along with a decision issued last year striking down the state of Vermont’s campaign spending limits and raising (although only modestly) the constitutional threshold  for contribution limits, this court  has sent troubling signals about what it intends do in this area of the law.

The immediate impact of the recent decision is to open the floodgates to more special interest money in our elections. In place of clarity, they have adopted a case-by case standard to determine whether an ad is or is not electioneering -- a standard best described by former Justice Potter Stewart’s statement (made when trying to define pornography), “I can’t define it, but I’ll know it when I see it.” Given the current leanings of the Federal Election Commission, the reality is that they won’t see much and wealthy and powerful interests will gain another leg up on the rest of us in influencing elections and the elected.

When Rep Henry Waxman (CA) took over the chairmanship of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform this year he did so with what he saw as a backlog of issues dating to 2000.   Dozens of hearings have exposed numerous problems in contracts with Halliburton and others including the Coast Guard’s Deepwater fiasco.  The problems are enormous and need fixing.

By the time it is all reported, the federal government will likely have awarded more than $400 billion to outside contractors last year.  The contracts cover a wide array of services most notably disaster relief and services in Iraq.  The combination of corruption and incompetence is alarming.

Last year, Congress passed the Federal Accountability and Transparency Act which directed OMB to create an online searchable database for all contracts awarded by the federal government.  While that is an important step, numerous problems continue.  Among the top concerns in this area in Congress this year are:

Contractor responsibility:  The government’s current system for awarding contracts allows so-called ‘bad actors’ to continue to compete for contracts without any consideration given to past performance.  New rules should at the very least include a system that accounts for companies’ health and safety violations, environmental record, whether they were able to complete previous projects, and whether they have defrauded the federal or state governments in the past.

Competitive bidding: Contracts are supposed to be awarded on a merit-based system that includes a competitive bidding.  However, in recent years the number of categories for exceptions to competition has grown considerably.  As a result,  the amount of money awarded in uncompetitive contracts is now around 40%.  Rules should be changed to narrow the exceptions to a few reasonable categories (i.e. when legitimate efforts to solicit bids yield only one). 

Crack done on fraud: The number of investigators and contract managers has been cut at the same time the money and contracts awarded has grown significantly.  One example of increasing fraud involves big businesses setting up pass through companies to attract contracts reserved for small businesses. There are simply not enough people to oversee what is being done with public’s money.

Additional disclosure:  As we know from other issue areas, FOIA requests are being routinely slowed or blocked.  There are efforts to open that up as it relates to contractors.  There are also efforts to change what is considered classified/sensitive but unclassified/unclassified.  Since President Bush took office there have been 100 new categories (without clear standards) created to keep contractor information from the public. In the last Congress, the Executive Branch Reform Act of 2006 was co-sponsored by Chairman Waxman to address some of these issues.

Restore scientific integrity: There are science panels that award contracts and grants for research and development.  Those panels should be free of partisan or political interference.

These are some of the issues that Congress needs to address if we are to be able to see any meaningful accountability in the use of our tax dollars.

War, terrorism, scandal, and voter frustration with Congress turned last year’s election into one of the closest mid-term elections in more than a decade.   Party control of the House and the Senate changed hands. In such a competitive year the results should prove that elections, in the end, are about issues and not money.

They should, but they won’t.  Campaign finance figures show that candidates raised more than $1.4 billion.  Add to that the fundraising by parties and independent groups and the total for the campaign season was $2.8 billion. For all the talk of competition, more than eighty-five percent of the races were not competitive and, in a slightly larger number, the candidates who raise and spend the most money won.  Despite the nascent promise of the Internet and new strategies to reach small donors, large donors and special interests still provide the majority of campaigns funds – approximately 82% in the 2006 primary races.  And members will return to a system that gives unfair advantage to the wealthy and well-connected regardless.

The fact is that this election will bolster the evidence that significant reform is needed.  Some will point to partisan gerrymandering to explain the reelection rate and, to a point, they will be right.  Sophisticated computer programs allow political operatives to redraw congressional district lines to protect incumbents or favor one party over another, but the argument does not explain the lack of competition in the primary elections.  A look at the fundraising totals offers another explanation.  In last year’s primaries, 92% of the candidates that raised the most money won.  Winning candidates outraised their opponents by 3.5 to 1.  In the current system, potential candidates who are not personally wealthy or do not have access to large donors might as well save themselves the frustration and disappointment. Although any number of candidates without access to wealth might better reflect the interests and values of the voters, they simply cannot compete.

Not surprisingly, the money chase also invites the type of corruption we learned of in the past year.  Two members of Congress, top aides and prominent lobbyists have already pleaded guilty to corruption charges and more indictments are expected.  We have seen everything from bribes given to secure questionable defense contracts that undermine our national security to special tax breaks traded for vacations to Scotland and a few rounds of golf.  Should we be surprised? In this record breaking year for congressional campaign spending, candidates are all but required to push the limits on fundraising practices if they want to compete.  A recent report by U.S. PIRG, The Wealthy Primary, suggests that a fundraising advantage is one of the top indicators of electoral success.

It does not have to be this way.  Alternative systems for funding campaigns have been working successfully in several states.  In Maine and Arizona, candidates who agree to reasonable spending limits and refuse special interest and other private contributions are eligible for public financing.  A similar program was recently signed into law by the Governor of Connecticut.  The public financing programs are effective and popular.  More than 90% of the candidates running for seats in the Maine legislature this year have opted in to the public financing system.

Public financing offers an opportunity for voters to see and hear from the people asking for their votes. Without having to spend the majority of their time hustling money from wealthy friends, candidates can afford to listen to the concerns of the communities they serve.  Under this clean money system, voters see real choices on Election Day rather than simply the “favorite sons” of the powerful interests because the playing field is level for qualified candidates.

Two weeks ago, Senators Dick Durbin (IL) and Arlen Specter (PA) introduced a bill (S. 936) modeled after the Maine, Arizona and Connecticut systems. 

Imagine how different the politics of the nation would be if qualified candidates had the time and resources to spend their campaigns talking with average voters instead of dialing for dollars.  Former Congressman and one-time senate  candidate Peter Kostameyer once said that the only time he saw people during his campaign was on the elevator up to his office to call potential donors.  We need to change the system -- not just tinker around the edges but really change the system.  The Durbin-Specter bill offers that change.

Congressional leadership has adopted pay-as-you-go budgeting practices.  Paygo, in Washington shorthand, means that all new spending requires either an equivalent budget cut or revenue increase.  It is responsible and it is generating shockwaves across K Street.

A recent article in the Washington Post described a significant organizing effort by the major lobbying firms to block attempts to pay for new spending on such items as health care or education with cuts in the tax breaks and subsidies lobbyists garnered for high paying clients.  All the big time players are gearing up – oil and gas interests, the pharmaceutical industry, insurance companies and financial services firms.  The wining and dining of legislators that paid off in the form of friendly earmarks for favored clients is being threatened by the promise of responsible budgeting. 

At the same time Congress has started to rein in the practices that have allowed powerful interests unfair access and influence.  If paygo is to succeed, members of Congress will need all the help they can get and the new rules are just the beginning.  The newly adopted bans on gifts and trips paid for by lobbyists and the use of corporate jets represent an important first step in breaking the bonds between legislators and those wealthy enough to buy the access they want.  To fully address the problem, Congress needs to change the way campaigns are funded which includes adopting a public financing system for congressional campaigns.  In the meantime, Congress should tighten the rules and open the books on the day to day activities of the K street crowd.

Following up on the rules changes passed in the early days of the new Congress, the House will soon be taking up legislation that could have a real impact on the way business is done in Washington.   To start with, Congress should eliminate the loopholes in the current law that allow members and high ranking staff to leave Congress one day as public officials only to return the next as representatives for special interests.  Cashing in on their public service in this way gives them unfair access to their former colleagues and puts the public at a distinct disadvantage. Consider the following.

• Former Representative Billy Tauzin left Congress to become the top legislative strategist for PhARMA, the lobbying arm for the leading drug companies.  Just prior to his moving from public service to the private sector, he personally negotiated Medicare’s new prescription drug plan which, many argue, is serving the interests of pharmaceutical companies more than the nation’s seniors.  Whatever they are paying him, there is no doubt it is worth the money.  His connections make him a valuable commodity, relegating those fighting for accessible healthcare to the back of the line.

• A former staff director for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee negotiated a senior level position with the Nuclear Energy Institute before he left Congress.  He spent his last few months in public service working successfully to insert billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies for the nuclear power industry.  The “advisory” conflict of interest rules did not prevent him from proving his worth to his potential employer while still in public life.  The Senate has since adopted new rules that would end this unseemly practice.  The House should follow suit.

After slowing the so-called revolving door, House members should modernize the disclosure rules to account for the way today’s campaigns are run and lobbying is practiced.  While individuals may contribute up to $2,300 to a candidate, “bundlers” now raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for candidates.  President Bush formalized the practice by awarding the best bundlers with membership in elite clubs like the Rangers and Pioneers.  Senator Hillary Clinton has set a goal for fundraisers for her presidential bid of $1 million each.  The lobbyists who raise these sums are doing more than raising  money, they are gathering political chits to cash in at later date.  The public has a right to know who these individuals are because the role they play is far greater than is reflected in the individual contribution they make personally.

Congress should also increase the disclosure requirements for the lobbying that firms do outside of Washington.  Lobbying firms already report the work they do inside the halls of Congress, but when these same firms create large scale advertising campaigns or run phone banks to generate public support for an issue important to their clients, they do so without any information to the public about who is behind these campaigns.  Our democracy works far better in sunlight than in darkness.  We should be allowed to make informed decisions and that requires knowledge of who is behind the competing messages.  As the public sees more and more of these outreach campaigns, Congress must act to update the disclosure rules to match the current practices.

These are the next steps Congress must take if the new leadership is serious about breaking the unhealthy ties that put the interests of the powerful few ahead of the public. 

Like jackals, opponents of the current presidential public financing system are anxiously watching the system teeter on the brink of collapse.  These die-hard opponents have worked to starve the funding and some are beginning a premature celebration of its demise.  But before they start the party, they might consider the benefits the system bestowed on ultimately successful candidates whose campaigns would have faded into silence without the ability to tap into public funds.  The most prominent example is Ronald Reagan, an insurgent candidate at the time whose voice and opinions would surely have been denied a fair hearing if not for a timely infusion of public funds.

For almost thirty years, the system operated successfully with the participation of every major party candidate from 1976 to the 2000 presidential campaign.  Funds have been distributed evenly between the two major parties -- approximately $600 million to each -- and have allowed for candidates who were not initially considered viable to make important contributions to the national debate -- candidates like Reagan, Jimmy Carter and John McCain. 

Political observers agree that the system has not been updated and, absent a fix, few candidates will opt-in come 2008. Senator Clinton has already signaled that she will bypass the system and others may not be far behind.  Senator Mitch McConnell and others have disingenuously cited the lack of recent support among presidential hopefuls.  Mr. McConnell, in particular, has opposed every attempt to modernize the program to reflect the way campaigns have changed over the last three decades. It is a gross distortion to cite the checkoff rates as reflective of public opinion.  Recent research by the Brennan Center for Justice revealed numerous problems with the checkoff as it is structured, none the least of which is that the vast majority of taxpayers who have their taxes filled out by a third party are never asked if they want to participate. A system rigged for failure will surely fail.

The answer to the problems faced by the presidential public financing system lies not in abandoning a once successful program, but in addressing the obstacles that make the program less than attractive to presidential hopefuls. For the system to regain the success it has historically enjoyed we must raise the spending limits, adjust the timing of the funding, eliminate the state-by state spending limits and let candidates decide how to best spend their campaign funds.  The high cost of campaigns and the compressed primary schedule make these changes essential for the system to adequately meet the needs of today’s campaigns.

In 2008, the nation is very likely to witness a presidential campaign which for the first time will have the two major party candidates raise and spend more than $1 billion. In the absence of a workable public finance program, the campaigns will be awash in special interest money.  After this year’s scandals involving Jack Abramoff, at least two Congressmen, top aides and other lobbyists, the public is not anxious for a fundraising free-for-all.  Numerous surveys and studies have documented the public’s frustration with Congress and what they perceive as an ethical vacuum in Washington, but interesting new research from the Joyce Foundation found that 65% disagreed with the statement that “corruption in government will always be a problem so trying to fix it will not make much difference.”  A majority also rejected the idea that money “will always influence government decisions so it is not worth trying to reduce the amount of money in politics.”  The public may be frustrated, but they are not giving up hope that we can and should continue to reform the system.

Due to congressional foot-dragging, it is too late to fix the system in time for the 2008 election, but we reject the idea that it is too late to fix the system. Bills introduced in the House and Senate this year modernize the system for the 2012 election and restore the incentives for all candidates to take part.  Without the public financing system we jeopardize the independence of the presidency and willingly turn the contest over to the highest bidders. 

Scandals over the last year have revealed a number of cases of overt corruption. Former Congressmen Duke Cunningham (CA) and Robert Ney (OH) were caught trading votes for campaign contributions and other bribes.  Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff landed in jail for masterminding efforts using campaign contributions to steer public funds to his pet projects. Rep William Jefferson (LA) is under investigation after the FBI found $90,000 in cash in his freezer and former Rep.Tom DeLay is still defending himself against corruption charges.  Several top legislative and White House aides have already pled guilty to corruption charges and this may only be the tip of the iceberg.
 

Scrutiny by the press and others has shown grossly inadequate rules and lax enforcement of the rules in Congress covering ethics and lobbying practices. While Congress operated in a state of denial, voters were clear about how they felt. Election day exit polls cited corruption as the top issue motivating voters. Polls throughout the year (USA Today, Gallop, CNN) showed corruption in Congress tied as a top tier concern among voters.  And a post election USA Today/Gallop poll found that Americans continue to be skeptical of Congress.  The poll found only 15% of Americans gave U.S. Senators high or very high marks for honesty and ethical standards. Only 14% did so for U.S. Representatives.

House answers skeptics; takes first important steps on ethics changes  

The new Congress in its opening session took its first critical steps in changing the way business is done in Washington . The overwhelming support (the measures passed 430 to 1) for new restrictions on lobbyist-funded trips and gifts sends a powerful message that the new Congress is taking the need for reform seriously.  This is a sea-change from the ill-conceived and ineffectual bill considered and passed by the House during the scandal plagued session last year.   There is more to be done and topping the list is the establishment of an independent enforcement entity.

Key is enforcement

Jack Abramoff’s fall from power cannot be credited to an aggressive House or Senate ethics enforcement process.  He was turned in to the Justice Department by a competitor turned whistle-blower. After the initial details of the case came out, the House and Senate Ethics Committees sat on their hands.  They initiated no probe nor asked any questions nor made any attempt to see if members had violated the rules and the public trust.  The House Ethics Committee was so paralyzed they failed to even convene a meeting for most of the 109^th Congress.  

The current system is broken.  Overseeing one’s own colleagues is difficult under any circumstances, but oversight in a partisan-charged environment like the U.S. Congress is, as we have now seen, impossible.  This is not to say that members of Congress are any less capable than others to self-police, no one self-polices well.  In the Executive Branch there is an Office of Government Ethics. Businesses have outside auditors. Congress needs independent and professional oversight and enforcement of the rules.  

Several proposals, such as the Office of Public Integrity put forth in the House by Reps. Shays (CT) and Meehan (MA), or an independent ethics commission as detailed in a bill by Reps. Castle (DE) and Platts (PA) create workable models of how such entities would operate.  Regardless of the specific model there are a number of important principles that U.S. PIRG and other reform groups have developed to ensure a fair professional process.

• The enforcement office should have the authority to receive and investigate outside complaints and to initiate and conduct investigations on its own authority, where the office determines that a matter requires investigation. The office should have the powers necessary to conduct investigations, including the authority to administer oaths, and to issue and enforce subpoenas. The subject of any investigation should have the opportunity to present information to the Office to show that no violation has occurred. The office should have the authority to dismiss frivolous complaints expeditiously and to impose sanctions for filing such complaints.
   
• The office should be headed by a Director or by a three-member panel, should have a professional, impartial staff and should have the resources necessary to carry out the office's responsibilities.
  
  
• If the office is headed by a Director, the Director should be chosen jointly by the Speaker and Minority Leader. If the Office is headed by a panel, the panel should consist of three members, with one member chosen by the Speaker, one member chosen by the Minority Leader and the third member chosen by the other two members.
  
  
• The Director or panel members should be individuals of distinction with experience as judges, ethics officials or in law enforcement, should not be Members or former Members, should have term appointments and should be subject to removal only for cause by joint agreement of the Speaker and Minority Leader.
  
  
• The office should have the authority to present a case to the House Ethics Committee for its decision, based on the same standard that is currently used to determine when a case should be presented to the Committee. The Ethics Committee would be responsible for determining if ethics rules have been violated and what, if any, sanctions should be imposed or recommended to the House. A public report should be issued on the disposition of a case by the Ethics Committee. The office should have the authority to recommend sanctions to the Committee, if the Committee determines an ethics violation had occurred.
  
  
• The office should receive, monitor and oversee financial disclosure, travel and other reports filed by Members and staff, to ensure that reports are properly filed and to make the reports public in a timely and easily accessible manner. The office should have the same authority for lobbying reports filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

Beyond the highly touted “first 100 hours,” the 110^th Congress must move to create outside, professional oversight to ensure the new rules will not be paper tigers and assure the American people that the new Congress will different from the last.