............................. Pre-election contributions       =                             post-election paybacks ............................ Post-election contributions  = BRIBES   Both are ...LEGAL! Both are shameful High court unleashes political  spending   In a decision with profound implications for the role of money in American campaigns, the Supreme Court on Thursday gave interest groups, unions and corporations the right to pour money into issue advertising in political races - reigniting the passionate battle over the influence of cash on the electoral process. The 5-4 decision punched a hole in the complex web of federal campaign-finance laws and rules in finding that those groups should have the same rights to spend money on political ads as any person. Direct contributions by corporations and unions to individual candidates are still forbidden. Supporters cheered the ruling, which they said returns the country to the core free-speech precept that political speech should be protected, no matter who or what is speaking. Critics warned that the foundations of American democracy are at stake and that big businesses will be able to spend enough money to influence elections. In stark language, the court acknowledged that it was overturning its own precedents, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, said the justices were now returning to "ancient First Amendment principles." "The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether," Justice Kennedy wrote in an opinion overturning a 1990 case and part of a separate 2003 case that upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance laws, enacted in 2002. President Obama State of the Union Address:   “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”    Last week’s Supreme Court Citizen’s United decision opens the floodgates to special interests and foreign countries and companies bankrolling national campaigns.  The President called for bipartisan support for legislation that will remedy the Supreme Court’s unprecedented and troubling decision.  CLICK HERE TO READ "Free Speech, Inc." (Corporations as People, and the Campaign Finance Ruling) 2010 Elections: Secret Financing and the Campaign Finance Reform Battles to Come by Fred Wertheimer, President, Democracy 21   The Supreme Court, in Citizens United, eliminated one of the nation's principal laws to protect against government corruption and opened the door to campaign finance scandals which began to play out in the 2010 congressional races. As a result of the decision, one of the worst in Supreme Court history, this is the first election in more than 60 years where corporations and labor unions were free to spend money to influence federal elections. As a result of the Citizens United decision, and the failure of five Justices to understand the nation's campaign finance laws, this also is the first election in nearly 40 years where hundreds of millions of dollars in secret money has flooded federal elections. Major campaign finance reforms are essential to protect the integrity of our elections and the interests of the American people in honest government. The battle for these reforms will begin immediately. Campaign finance reform victories can be won regardless of who controls Congress or the Presidency. In 2000, legislation to require 527 groups to disclose their campaign contributions and expenditures was enacted with Republicans in control of the House and the Senate and a Democratic president. In 2002, legislation to ban unlimited or "soft money" contributions to the national parties was enacted with Republicans in control of the House, Democrats barely in control of the Senate, 51 to 49, and a Republican president. Secret contributions in political campaigns are a formula for influencing-buying corruption. It has happened before and will happen again. You cannot have secret $100,000 or $1,000,000 contributions going to outside spending groups, without having the influence-seeking donors who provided this secret money also trying to buy influence and votes from the federal officeholders they have helped elect. Unless we enact new disclosure laws, secret contributions to outside spending groups are bound to dramatically increase in the 2012 elections, when both presidential and congressional races will be at stake. In addition to new disclosure laws, Congress also must take steps to prevent the blatant abuse of the tax laws that took place in this election, such as the misuse of the tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations by political groups like Karl Rove's brainchild, Crossroads GPS. Just as history tells us secrecy results in scandal, history also tells us that scandal results in reform. The Watergate campaign finance scandals in the 1970s resulted in the creation of the landmark presidential public financing system which served the nation well for most of its existence until it became outdated when Congress failed to modernize it. The Watergate scandals also led to the enactment of limits on individual contributions to candidates and parties, upheld by the Supreme Court as necessary to prevent corruption of federal officeholders and government decisions. The soft money scandals in the 1990s led to the ban on unlimited contributions to the national parties upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003, a decision that was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court earlier this year. The soft money ban continues to serve the country well in preventing a system of legalized bribery of federal officeholders. Similarly, major campaign finance reform battles lie ahead. The most immediate reform to be pursued involves passing the DISCLOSE Act to ensure that organizations spending money to influence federal elections are required to disclose to voters the donors financing those expenditures. The Act passed the House in June and in September fell just one vote short of the 60 votes needed to reach the Senate floor for action. Another effort must be made in the post-election session to pass the DISCLOSE Act in the Senate and enact it into law. If this cannot be accomplished, however, the battle for the DISCLOSE Act will begin immediately in the next Congress. A New York Times/CBS News poll recently found that 92 percent of Americans support disclosure of the contributions financing campaign expenditures. Opponents of disclosure cannot sustain the practice of secret influence-buying contributions being spent to influence federal campaigns, in the face of overwhelming public support for disclosure of the contributions. An expected Republican-led effort to reinstate the soft money system must be defeated. The corrupt soft money system was banned by Congress in 2002 and the ban was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2003 and again by the Court this year. The argument will be made by proponents that the limits on contributions to the national parties should be eliminated or greatly increased so that parties can "compete" with outside spenders. But you cannot solve the problems caused by the corrupting role being played by outside spending groups by legalizing much greater and more direct corruption in the form of huge influence-buying contributions made to the national parties to benefit federal officeholders. It should be noted, furthermore, that even with the soft money ban, the national parties will raise as much as $1 billion or more for the 2010 congressional election cycle, far more than the amount spent by outside spending groups. In testifying in support of the soft money ban in 2003, former Republican Senator Warren Rudman said: Individuals on both sides of the table recognize that larger donations effectively "purchase" greater benefits for donors... Large soft money contributions in fact distort the legislative process. They affect what gets done and how it gets done. They affect whom Senators and House members see, whom they spend their time with, what input they get, and make no mistake about it, this money affects outcomes as well. Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson also testified in support of the ban stating that a system of unlimited contributions "prostitutes ideas and ideals, demeans democracy, and debases debates." Simpson said, "Too often, Members' first thought is not what is right or what they believe, but how it will affect fundraising. Who, after all, can seriously contend that a $100,000 donation does not alter the way one thinks about - and quite possibly votes on - an issue?" In the next Congress, the fight will continue for fundamental reforms to repair the presidential public financing system and create a similar system for congressional races. The goal of the new systems is to make citizens who donate small contributions the key players in financing our federal elections. Small donor contributions raised on the Internet and magnified in importance by public matching funds have the potential to revolutionize the way we finance our campaigns. These reforms will be vigorously pursued in the new Congress. A serious effort also will be made to address the absence of enforcement of the campaign finance laws caused by the dysfunctional Federal Election Commission, and in particular by the three Republican FEC commissioners who are ideological opponents of the laws and have shown no interest in enforcing or properly interpreting them. If the voices and interests of average citizens are to be heard in Washington, then the role and importance of small donors in financing our elections must be greatly enhanced and the role of influence-seeking larger donors, bundlers and outside spenders must be greatly diminished. We have won important campaign finance reform battles before. We can and will win them again. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-wertheimer/on-secret-financing-of-20_b_778346.html   Insurers Gave U.S. Chamber $86 Million Used to Oppose Obama's Health Law By Drew Armstrong - Nov 17, 2010 Health insurers last year gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $86.2 million that was used to oppose the health-care overhaul law, according to tax records and people familiar with the donation. The insurance lobby, whose members include Minnetonka, Minnesota-based United Health Group and Cigna Corp of Philadelphia, gave the money to the Chamber in 2009 as Democ rats increased criticism of the industry, according to a person who requested anonymity because laws don’t require identifying funding sources. The Chamber got the money from the America's Heath Insyrence Plan as the industry urged Congress to drop a plan to create a competing government-run insurance plan. “Clearly the secrecy was important to industry,” Sheila Krumholtz executive director of the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, said in an interview. The group tracks money in politics and isn’t affiliated with a political party. “Eighty-six million dollars is an astonishing sum,” she said. The spending on the Chamber exceeded the insurer group’s entire budget from a year earlier and accounted for 40 percent of the Chamber’s $214.6 million in 2009 expenditures. The spending reflects the insurers’ attempts to influence the bill, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will provide coverage to 32 million previously uninsured Americans, after Democrats in Congress and the White House put more focus on regulation of the insurance industry. Click here to read full article

DOLLARCRACY RISES

DOLLARS WILL VOTE, NOT PEOPLE - click on box for more

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Big Donors Plan Boost in Campaign Spending

NEW YORK TIMES DEBATE: How Corporate Money Will Reshape Politics

DOLLARCRACY = ACCESS TO POWER The top 10 individual donors to House and Senate members from New York include some of the nation’s leading figures in real estate, energy, finance and law. Together, they gave slightly more than $381,000 last year. Among organizations, the city’s white-shoe law firms and labor unions were the biggest givers, collectively contributing $1.5 million last year. Nearly $370,000 of that came from two Manhattan law firms ...whose partners and employees gave heavily to a notable alumna of both firms...Five major labor unions gave nearly $740,000 total to New York’s representatives in Congress, while a trial lawyers’ group...gave $176,000 to New York’s delegation. The donors’ motivations vary widely, from a desire to protect their business interests to ideological allegiance to personal loyalty to concern over foreign policy. And they enjoy a level of access to the government that is unavailable to most people. READ FULL NYT ARTICLE . DOLLARCRACY DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE From 2004 to 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus’s political and charitable wings took in at least $55 million in corporate and union contributions..."All eight open House investigations involve caucus members, and most center on accusations of improper ties to private businesses." The bottom line is that it appears the Congressional Black Caucus is devoted to two things -- spending millions of dollars on lavish parties and raising money from corporations and lobbyists. And many of the caucus' fundraising arrangements are suspect at best. READ NEW YORK TIMES EXPOSE CFI - AEI - Brookings Working Group Report REFORM IN AN AGE OF NETWORKED CAMPAIGNS: How to Foster Citizen Participation Through Small Donors and Volunteers  Click here for the full report, audio, video, and transcript. A joint project of the Campaign Finance Institute, American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution unveiled a new report, "Reform in an Age of Networked Campaigns: How to Foster Citizen Participation Through Small Donors and Volunteers." The report, co-authored by Anthony J. Corrado, Michael J. Malbin, Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, seeks to change the ongoing national dialogue about money in politics. The political world has been arguing about campaign finance policy for decades. A once-rich conversation has become a stale, two-sided battleground. The time has come to leap over this gulf and, as much as possible, move the disputes from the courts. The 2008 elections showcased the power of the Internet to generate enthusiasm, mobilize volunteers and increase small-donor contributions. The digital revolution has altered the calculus of participation. Instead of further restricting the wealthy few, therefore, this new report presents detailed recommendations to help activate the many.  In addition to extensive new information about the role of small and large doors in federal and state elections, the fifty-five page report contains this report offers a new vision of how campaign finance and communications policy can help further democracy through broader participation. Key recommendations, which are meant to apply to state as well as federal elections, include: Ensure open and accessible communications and information by (1) expanding affordable broadband access, (2) carriers providing full access for political speech and (3) creating a one-stop portal for all of a citizen's election-related public information; Improve transparency by (1) making all disclosure reports be filed and available to the public electronically, (2) filing advertising logs electronically with the FCC and (3) developing a single disclosure Web site; Refining contribution limits on contributions to candidates and political parties; Redefining public funding by (1) providing multiple-dollar matching funds for small donors in general elections and primaries and , (2) doing away with spending limits as a requirement for public funding, (3) requiring candidates who accept public funds to abide by lower contribution limits instead of spending limits, (4) offering early money sooner, (5) using tax credits or rebates; and Enhancing party-candidate relations an electoral accountability by allowing unlimited coordinated expenditures for political parties from small-donor contributions. Lobbying industry booms in recession  BIG SPENDERS More than half of the 20 groups and companies that spent the most on lobbying last year increased their lobbying expenses over 2008. Totals include lobbying subsidiaries. Name Total 2008 Total 2009 U.S. Chamber of Commerce $91,725,000 $144,456,000 ExxonMobil $29,000,000 $27,430,000 Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America $20,220,000 $26,465,520 General Electric $19,379,000 $25,520,000 Pfizer Inc. $12,180,000 $24,619,268 AARP $27,900,000 $21,010,000 American Medical Association $20,555,000 $20,830,000 Chevron Corp. $12,994,000 $20,815,000 Blue Cross-Blue Shield{+1} $16,300,165 $20,067,939 National Association of Realtors $17,340,000 $19,497,000 ConocoPhillips $8,459,053 $18,069,858 Verizon Communications $18,020,000 $17,820,000 FedEx $9,335,000 $17,050,000 Boeing $17,540,000 $16,850,000 American Hospital Association $18,902,684 $16,300,000 National Cable and Telecommunications Association $14,500,000 $15,980,000 Northrop Grumman $20,743,252 $15,180,000 Lockheed Martin $15,981,506 $13,533,782 Business Roundtable $13,320,000 $13,410,000 Altria Group $13,840,000 $12,770,000 1 Fourth-quarter reports are still being talliedSources: Center for Responsive Politics, U.S. Senate The recession has battered the U.S. economy, but the lobbying industry is humming along in the nation's capital, even for companies that have shed thousands of jobs in the past year. The 20 trade associations and companies that spent the most on lobbying increased their spending by more than 20% in 2009 to $507.7 million, up from $418.2 million a year earlier, according to a USA TODAY analysis of reports compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. The top 20 include oil giant ConocoPhillips, which announced nearly 1,300 layoffs in January 2009, and drugmaker Pfizer, which shed 4,200 jobs since completing its merger with drug company Wyeth last fall.... The U.S. Chamber of Commerce led spending, pumping $144.5 million into lobbying last year, according to the center's tally. That's a nearly 60% increase over 2008 and came as the business federation battled Congress and the White House over legislation dealing with health care and financial regulation. Spending jumped because the chamber also launched an advertising campaign last year, including TV ads slamming a congressional proposal to create a new consumer-protection agency to oversee lending, said R. Bruce Josten, the chamber's executive vice president for government affairs. The chamber needed to respond to "critically important, top-tier issues to the business community" coming out of Congress, he said. More than half of the top 20 companies increased lobbying activity in 2009. Others, including Verizon, Boeingand Lockheed Martin, curtailed spending. Struggling automaker General Motors tumbled out of the top 20 altogether. GM, which has cut 21,000 U.S. jobs and has received more than $50 billion in government aid — spent $8.7 million on lobbying last year, down from $13.4 million in 2008 _______________________________________ Health care groups lobby at record pace The drug and insurance industries have dramatically amped up their efforts to lobby Congress, spending millions over a three-month period to influence legislation aimed at reshaping the nation's health care system, new reports show. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America reported nearly $7 million in lobbying expenses from July through September. Overall, the group has spent nearly as much during the first nine months of 2009 as it did during the entire previous year. Individual drug companies also have sharply increased lobbying. Pfizer, for instance, has spent more than $17 million in lobbying during the first nine months of this year, nearly twice its lobbying budget during the same period in 2008. Pfizer spokeswoman Kristen Neese said the spending reflects a commitment to "making our voice heard." “It leaves room for a little cynicism that money buys votes, but realistically, it’s the engine of the process.” When President Obama arrived at the Mandarin Oriental hotel for a fund-raising reception on Thursday night, the new White House rules of political purity were in order: no lobbyists allowed. But at the same downtown hotel on Friday morning, registered lobbyists have not only been invited to attend an issues conference with Democratic leaders, but they have also been asked to come with a $5,000 check in hand if they want to stay in good favor with the partys House and Senate re-election committees. The practicality of Mr. Obamas pledge to change the ways of Washington is colliding once more with the reality of how money, influence and governance interact here. He repeatedly declared while campaigning last year that he would not take a dime from lobbyists or political action committees. So to follow through with that promise, Mr. Obama is simply leaving the room...The White House said the president had agreed to attend the event on Thursday night, expected to raise $3 million, only if federal lobbyists were not on hand...A ticket went for $5,000 on Thursday night, but most people contributed far more. The top tier for contributors was $100,000, known as the United Committee, which was assigned to those who donated their own money and helped raise even more. Most people gave $30,400 per couple, which included a photograph with the president...The Republican National Committee said Mr. Obama had not kept his word. This is the height of hypocrisy and just one more example of President Obamas rhetoric not squaring with reality, said the Republican chairman, Michael Steele. Candidate Obama said lobbyists and special interests will not fund the Democratic Party, but now the Democrats are cashing their checks as fast as they come in, 364 days a year.

Bloomberg Spent $102 Million to Win 3rd Term To eke out an election victory over the city’s low-key comptroller, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg spent $102 million of his own fortune — or about $174 per vote — according to data released Friday, making his bid for a third term the most expensive campaign in the city’s history. Mr. Bloomberg, the wealthiest man in New York City, shattered his own records: He poured $85 million into his campaign in 2005 (or $112 per vote) and $74 million into his first bid for office in 2001 ($99 per vote). And the $102 million tab is likely to rise, because the mayor has not yet doled out postelection bonuses to campaign workers, which have routinely exceeded $100,000 a person in years past. That spending will not be reported until after his inauguration in January. Mr. Bloomberg has now spent at least $261 million of his own money in the pursuit of public office, more than anyone else in the United States. Link to New York Times article WORTH READING Is Constituency Democracy Destroying The U.S.A.? >>> Our government has deteriorated into constituencies, which drive only for constituent gains. We have traded being a beacon for the world, to groups of people who are selfishly grabbing pieces of an ever-shrinking pie. Each constituency seems to feel that their end justifies the means, resulting in spinning the truth, telling flat-out lies while ignoring impending doom. National Donor Profiles >>> Thousands of corporations and special interest groups, playing off the old adage "don't put all your eggs in one basket," are spreading their political cash across the nation, from the U.S. Capitol to the smallest states' statehouses. They may do so for a number of reasons, such as building strong relationships with decision-makers, attempting to influence votes or supporting philosophical positions such as lower taxes or expanded health care. This database provides you with the total contributions for the Top 10,000 national givers in U.S. politics and their contributions to state-level politics during the 2008 election cycle. It's information that exists nowhere else. Use it to follow the money not only in the nation's capital, but also from Alaska to Florida, Maine to California -- and everywhere in between. . Corzine's total tally for his 3 campaigns: $131M   It will take some time to assess the costs and benefits of Jon Corzine's nine years as an elected official. But how much money his political career cost him is now known. He spent $131 million of his own money on three runs for political office since 2000, including primaries, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal and state campaign finance data, including a report issued Tuesday by the state Election Law Enforcement Commission. That's enough money to pay the entire property tax billfor a year for everyone in Corzine's hometown ofHoboken. It's nearly as much as the NHL paid last month to buy the Phoenix Coyotes and rescue the franchise from bankruptcy. "After $130 million, what he got out of it was a term in the Senate, a term in the Statehouse and a portrait in the outer office," said Peter McDonough, an adjunct professor at Rutgers University's Eagleton Institute of Politics and a former communications director for Republican former Gov. Christie Whitman. Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center of Responsive Politics, says it's safe to say that Corzine has spent more of his own money to run for office than anyone in U.S. history other than New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The mayor has spent about twice as much as Corzine in his three elections, all of them victorious. Corzine is known for running overwhelming campaigns in a state where doing that requires lots of pricey airtime on New York and Philadelphia television stations. He was pushed out of his job at the helm of Goldman Sachs in 1999 and used his fortune to help him burst onto the state's political scene. In 2000, the Democrat was elected to the U.S. Senate. In 2005, he was elected governor. And last month, after spending $27 million on a bitter campaign—$25.3 million of it his own—he lost to Republican Chris Christie, who spent $11.4 million. READ FULL ARTICLE

Obama's New Ambassador Nominees Gave Big -- and Bundled Bigger President Obama announced another 10 names for ambassadorships last week, and in doing so, he awarded another set of big donors and bundlers with plum positions representing U.S. interests abroad. The new nominees for ambassadors to Belize, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Romania and Switzerland along with their spouses and dependent children have contributed at least $637,800 to federal candidates, parties and committees since 1989, CRP has found. Nearly that entire sum has gone to Democrats, including $32,775 to Obama himself and $8,300 to former primary opponent and now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. These individuals also brought in at least $1.1 million for Obama's presidential bid as bundlers, and at least another half-a-million as bundlers for his inauguration. To date, this brings the contribution histories of Obama's ambassador nominees to roughly $1.8 million in donations since 1989. The 19 ambassadors that CRP has found in our campaign contribution database, along with their spouses and children, have given more than $98,200 to Obama personally, bundled at least $3.4 million for his 2008 presidential run and bundled another $1.4 million for his inauguration. RASMUSSEN POLL: 60% of Americans say most politicians will break the rules to help people who gave them large campaign contributions. Just 19% say most politicians would refrain from breaking the law.

	56% Favor Regulation of Campaign Contributions, But 88% Say Special Interests Likely To Get Around It The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a ruling this fall that could loosen restrictions on contributions to political campaigns in a major way, but 56% of U.S. voters believe the federal government should regulate how much money individuals can give to political campaigns. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% don’t believe the government should regulate campaign contributions. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure. But 88% say it’s at least somewhat likely that special interest groups will find ways to get money to politicians and influence their votes even if the government places limits on how much individuals can give to campaigns. Voters feel strongly about this, too, because 69% say it is Very Likely. Only five percent (5%) say it’s not very likely special interests will find ways around the government regulations, and another two percent (2%) say it’s not at all likely. There is very little partisan disagreement on the need for campaign finance regulation or over the ability of special interests to get around that regulation.   Read article Freshmen: Massa right about money At least one part of former Rep. Eric Massa’s hourlong, train-wreck interview with cable-television host Glenn Beck rang true to his fellow House freshmen Tuesday: the grim description of the intense and time-consuming fundraising pressures that dominate the lives of junior members. “Congressmen spend between five and seven hours a day on the phone, begging for money,” Massa (D-N.Y.) told Beck, before launching into a detailed account of the arduous fundraising routine — a demeaning process, Massa said — that includes filling out call sheets, detailing the amount of money raised per hour and conferring with fundraising coaches who advise them on how to wring even more money out of donor calls.  “I don’t have the life’s energy to get up at 5 in the morning and work until midnight [and] spend five hours on the phone begging for money,” said Massa, estimating that he worked 120 hours a week as a congressman. “I have completely abandoned my family for five years.”  To his fellow members of the Class of 2008 — many of whom are also looking to solidify their grip on newly won seats while convincing party leaders of their political chops —Massa’saccount was all too familiar.  In interviews with a dozen House freshmen, nearly all of whom requested anonymity to discuss their fundraising practices candidly, members said Massa’s estimate of five to seven hours of daily fundraising call time was something of a stretch. But they agreed that his account wasn’t that far off the mark.  They described days packed with research about potential donors, trips down the block to the boiler-room-style call centers operated by the campaign committees and hours of mind-numbing calls dialed from cramped cubicles.  “How much do I like doing it? I hate it. It’s the worst,” one House freshman remarked to POLITICO during a vote this week. “I hate fundraising. I make no bones about it.”  “It’s kind of like going from alpha to omega,” said the first-termer, pointing from the House floor to the direction of the campaign committee headquarters where he makes his fundraising calls. “I don’t know many people who like it. And if they do like it, there is probably something wrong with them.”  “It’s actually sad,” lamented a freshman Democrat who spends one to two hours a day dialing for dollars. “I don’t think most of us when we ran for office thought we’d be spending so much time raising money.”  Most members interviewed for this article said they spend anywhere from 10 to 15 hours a week on the phone raising money or holding fundraising events in the restaurants, offices or clubs that surround the Capitol — a remarkable time commitment, but one that freshmen describe as the reality of the lives they lead. “It’s no different than the campaign. I’m in a tough district. It takes a lot of money to win,” said one freshman Democrat who said he schedules about 15 hours of fundraising time per week. “There’s a direct correlation to the time you spend on the phone and the money you raise.” “I don’t get a lot of sleep,” said the Democrat, noting that he spends time researching all the donors he contacts in addition to practicing specific pitches that he thinks will increase the likelihood that a check will come his way. “It’s just the reality.”  “We do a great deal of fundraising. It’s part of the job,” said another House freshman who estimated spending about 10 hours a week on the phone with donors. “My tolerance is such that I don’t do it for more than 1½ hours.”  “I am probably not the best fundraiser,” the freshman shrugged. “I’m doing pretty well.”  The intense focus on fundraising reflects the reality of running a campaign in the era of the 24-hour news cycle, with outside interest groups willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on efforts to dislodge incumbents. In 2008, House freshmen spent an average of about $1.8 million on their reelection campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.  “It’s gone up in recent years,” said former Texas Rep. Martin Frost, who served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  But the hours on the phone also reflect a Capitol Hill culture that measures political sway by the size of a campaign’s bank account — not to mention one’s margin of reelection. One freshman, who said he was contemplating a rise through his party’s leadership ranks, said there was nothing worse than giving the impression to party bosses that he couldn’t fend for himself financially or that he was somehow a financial weak link.  “You’ve got to show you’re a player, and you’ve got to do that by being reelected. And fundraising is a big part of that,” said Frost. “This is the real world. Politics is not for the faint of heart. And to anyone who wants to make a difference, you’ve got to show you can be reelected.”  “The pressure to get reelected, to climb the leadership ladder, to raise money for the party, is a big part of politics,” said former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, who once chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Your reputation in politics centers on whether you got reelected, and fundraising is a big part of that.”  The expectations of the NRCC and the DCCC can be crushing, the freshmen say, further intensifying the fundraising pressures, with both committees laying out specific benchmarks for members to meet in order for them to be eligible for committee assistance down the road. DCCC staffers and leaders “hammer” the importance of amassing cash at the beginning and then “grill” new members if they don’t raise enough money or meet their goals, said a House Democrat who is a member of DCCC’s Frontline program, which aims to provide fundraising and institutional support to vulnerable incumbents. They talk about wanting to see “sweat equity.” “You hear about it if you don’t,” the Frontline member said. “I worry that some [colleagues] go overboard and have made it almost an obsession.”  For many freshmen, most of the fundraising takes place at NRCC and DCCC headquarters. Members describe crowded rooms of metal folding chairs amid cubicles set up to serve as call centers, where the din of fundraising calls makes it hard to think or concentrate.  “You’re on one side, and you’re overhearing the person on the other side — and sometimes they’re talking to the person you just called,” said one freshman Democrat.  Members quietly converse on the side with staffers, and many take calls on their cell phones between calls on the committee phones. Some have learned to talk on two phones at once while working off call sheets that have been provided by fundraising consultants.  “It’s sort of like a boiler room,” one Frontline House Democrat said. “It’s a sweatshop.”  “It’s hardly what one imagines one ran for Congress to be and do. There’s not much romantic to it,” said the member.  To some, the notion of calling people they barely know and asking them to open their checkbooks is hard to stomach. “I’m not good at cold-calling people who I don’t know,” said one freshman. “I just wasn’t brought up to call people asking for money who I haven’t met.”  Some freshmen claim the fundraising demands don’t bother them.  “Given the needs of my district down there, I don’t have too much time to fundraise,” said Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao (R-La.), whose calm belies his status as perhaps the most vulnerable member of the House. “There is pressure to fundraise, but my focus right now is simply to represent the people of the 2nd District of Louisiana.”  First-term Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who represents a safely Republican district in Utah, said he doesn’t have to spend much time fundraising — the NRCC mandates that he raise only $125,000 each year.  “It’s much easier to do without it,” Chaffetz said, adding that he spends only about two to three hours a week asking donors for cash. “But it’s the reality of what you have to do for the job.”  NASA legend and former Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) would prefer picking a fight with a primate to raising funds for a campaign, lamenting that clamoring for cash “was the most onerous part of politics for me. I’d rather wrestle a gorilla right here on the floor than ask anybody for five bucks — make it a dollar.” - The Hill, 1/11/12

MAPLight.org, a groundbreaking public database, illuminates the connection between campaign donations and legislative votes in unprecedented ways. Elected officials collect large sums of money to run their campaigns, and they often pay back campaign contributors with special access and favorable laws. This common practice is contrary to the public interest, yet legal. MAPLight.org makes money/vote connections transparent, to help citizens hold their legislators accountable.

	Barack Obama (D) University of California $1,591,395 Goldman Sachs $994,795 Harvard University $854,747 Microsoft Corp $833,617 Google Inc $803,436 Citigroup Inc $701,290 JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132 Time Warner $590,084 Sidley Austin LLP $588,598 Stanford University $586,557 National Amusements Inc $551,683 UBS AG $543,219 Wilmerhale Llp $542,618 Skadden, Arps et al $530,839 IBM Corp $528,822 Columbia University $528,302 Morgan Stanley $514,881 General Electric $499,130 US Government $494,820 Latham & Watkins $493,835 John McCain (R) Merrill Lynch $373,595 Citigroup Inc $322,051 Morgan Stanley $273,452 Goldman Sachs $230,095 JPMorgan Chase & Co $228,107 US Government $208,379 AT&T Inc $201,438 Wachovia Corp $195,063 UBS AG $192,493 Credit Suisse Group $183,353 PricewaterhouseCoopers $167,900 US Army $167,820 Bank of America $166,026 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $159,596 Blank Rome LLP $154,226 Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,437 US Dept of Defense $144,105 FedEx Corp $131,974 Bear Stearns $117,498 Lehman Brothers $114,357

The Campaign Finance Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit institute, affiliated with The George Washington University, that conducts objective research and education, empanels task forces and makes recommendations for policy change in the field of campaign finance.

Click on picture to go to report

View my Flipboard Magazine.

Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect

                     --- Mark Twain

We have never observed a great civilization with a population as old as the United States will have in the twenty-first century; we have never observed a great civilization that is as secular as we are apparently going to become; and we have had only half a century of experience with advanced welfare states...Charles Murray

	Kella

This is a personal website containing personal information and some news and  personal opinions on certain issues affecting democratic governance of interest to me and my friends, associates and seminar participants. The financial information, charts, etc., consist of items I find interesting. Draw your own conclusions from it.

Copyright Notice: In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on this website is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only. Ref.: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://platform.linkedin.com/badges/js/profile.js" async defer></script>