All Posts Tagged With: "money"
Card Check Timing Conspiracy?
I’m not sure how many of you in the Agora are following the card check legislation, also known as the Employee Free Choice Act. This is an epic battle between labor unions and business. The EFCA would simplify the process of forming a union by allowing a majority of workers to sign a card supporting a union, rather than voting on unionization. It also includes binding arbitration provisions, and increased penalties, but most of the media focus is on “card check.” This eliminates the company’s opportunity to launch a campaign against unionizing, or take affirmative steps to address the needs of workers to preclude the need to unionize. Big business has chosen the secret ballot as the symbol of their battle, which I consider a mistake. I think a well reasoned explanation of practical objections, particularly those based on current economic circumstances, would be a better way to sway public opinion, in part because explanations of the current unionization regime don’t seem particularly unreasonable in the public mind.
Recently Sen. Specter, a moderate, endangered Republican, stated he will not vote for cloture to bring the card check vote to the floor. Now a compromise proposal is being floated, but both main interest groups are opposing it. All along both groups have vowed that no compromise would be acceptable. I suspect that position will hold, at least through 2009. But the reason isn’t Arlen Specter.
In the media we may hear lots of stories about why the bill is held back. The story may center on specific moderate Senators, or we may hear a narrative about how the EFCA is too bloody of a battle to fight now when we are facing economic disaster, or that the Dems are waiting for Frankin, or that unions need to wait for the economy to recover to weaken the business’s gloom and doom predictions. But what’s really going on? It all comes down to money. This is the kind of fight that employs a great many lobbyists, many of whom have less and less other paying work due to clients cutting their lobbying budget or being unable to pay their bills. Too many people on both sides are getting paid for anyone to want to draw thier guns. Why fight the war when after it’s waged the retainer checks will stop coming in? And until the vote takes place, both unions and business groups will stay especially interested in fundraisers for moderate, endangered members like Specter.
A study in self-funding
Today Rich Miller at Capitol Fax referenced a study that illustrates the folly of self-financed campaigns, and observes that the Illinois GOP should take a lesson from this recent history.
* And a study of the 2008 election results shows that self-funding candidates don’t do well at all…
49 Congressional candidates spend $500,000 of their own money, and of them, only 6 House candidates and 1 Senate candidate won.
Perhaps the saddest case of this was Sandy Treadwell, who ran against Kirsten Gillibrand in NY-20. Treadwell poured in at least $5.9 million of his own money. (Gillibrand spent $3.6 million, but only $250 of that was her own money.) The return on Treadwell’s investment: priceless. If by ‘priceless,’ you mean losing to Gillibrand by a 23-point margin.
The Illinois GOP might take that as a broad hint to stop recruiting those self-funders.
As usual Miller is spot on. If you can’t convince your people and your party to support your campaign, it’s a good hint that you’re not a viable candidate.
Too often wealthy candidates are surrounded with people afraid to tell them bad news, or the egos of the wealthy are spurred on by staffers who want to keep getting a check. And when you’re many months, hundreds of hours, and tens of thousands of dollars in to a campaign, its hard to recognize sunk costs, and hard to tell when to stop.
This is also a good sign for our democracy. Folk’s don’t like it when it looks like you’re just buyin’ it. An interesting question, would more aggressive federal campaign finance reform reverse this trend? It’s really hard concoct campaign finance legislation that could constitutionally limit the ability of a candidate to spend their own money on their campaign. Does limiting PACs, lobbyists, and contribution amounts give self-financed candidates an unfair advantage?
Yesterday’s Follies
Nobody likes the guy who predicts calamity, especially when he turns out to be right. Beginning in 2004, I began to predict that the stock market was overvalued and was set up for a sizable fall. I said there was too much debt amongst consumers. Read more…
What’s a lobbyist to do?
It is widely known that Barack Obama does not accept contributions from lobbyists or federal PACs. He also doesn’t accept funds from individuals registered as foreign agents under FARA. The DNC is now following his lead, and even returning $100,000 it received from lobbyists. Although I am a partisan Democrat, and I frequently give to progressive candidates, I am registered both as a lobbyist and as a federal agent, and therefore, I’m unable to donate to Barack Obama or the DNC. However, I support the Obama policy, and not just because it gives me a good excuse to keep money in my checking account.
As a brief aside, many people don’t realize how little you have to do to be required to register as a lobbyist or as a foreign agent. Two one minute phone calls to a Hill staffer on behalf of a client can require registration as a lobbyist. Any work at all in support of a foreign government, even one Google search, requires registration. Obama’s rules aren’t targeted necessarily at guy’s like me, but I’m still covered. Disclosure reports don’t really distinguish between those merely required to register by the letter of the law, and the high powered lobbyists Obama likely intended to cover. We are demonized collectively, each branded with scarlet Ls.
Former Ambassador Tom Korologos recently wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal titled “In Defense of Lobbyists.” Ambassador Korologos is one of the most respected lobbyists in Washington, but I felt his editorial missed a key point. No one is saying lobbyists should be banished from Washington, or silenced from “petitioning the government for redress.” The Obama campaign is simply refusing to accept lobbyist money. A lobbyist can still, through skill, honesty and hard work, be a valuable mouthpiece for clients and a valuable source of information for Members of Congress. Senator Obama merely wants to keep these roles separate from any semblance of a quid pro quo exchange of money for influence.
Lobbyists supporting Obama are not wholly deprived of an opportunity to play a small part in America’s civic religion. We can still do almost everything else average Americans can do to help. We can still phone bank, canvass, write letters to the editor, poll watch, help other voters get to the polls, knock on doors, etc. And we should. Obama’s lobbyist donation gambit has been a big success. He sacrificed relatively small pools of money, but distinguished himself from Clinton and McCain. More importantly, Obama is convincing the public that that government can be reclaimed from corporate interests and restored to the service of the people.