McCain and the Republican National Convention (RNC) are different from Obama and the Democratic National Convention (DNC). When in doubt, follow the money. Wasn't McCain calling for campaign finance reform in the past?
For all his talk of reform, John McCain is willing to rely on huge
donations from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.
Here it is from Fox News:
At the end of May, the RNC had nearly $54 million in the bank to the DNC’s $4 million.
By banning federal lobbyist and PAC money from the DNC, Obama sought to
avoid an inconsistency with his own campaign’s fundraising policy. The
ban applies to future fundraising, meaning the party won’t have to
return money it has already raised from lobbyists and PACs.
“Today as the Democratic nominee for president, I am announcing that
going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same
standard — we will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists,” Obama
said at a town-hall meeting in Bristol, Va.
McCain’s senior advisers are former lobbyists, including campaign
manager Rick Davis. McCain was stung last month by the disclosure that
two advisers — now gone — had worked for a firm that had represented
the military junta in Myanmar, also known as Burma, which has
restricted foreign assistance for cyclone victims.
They [the RNC] depend on donations from Washington lobbyists and special interest
PACs. And top officials in McCain's campaign have been asking these
donors to write checks and raise money from their clients to the tune
of $50,000 each.
Barack is doing things differently.
This [Obama's] campaign has never accepted donations from Washington
lobbyists or special interest PACs. And yesterday the Democratic
National Committee announced that they will follow the same
restriction.
For all his talk of reform, John McCain is willing to rely on huge
donations from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.
Here it is from Fox News:
At the end of May, the RNC had nearly $54 million in the bank to the DNC’s $4 million.
By banning federal lobbyist and PAC money from the DNC, Obama sought to
avoid an inconsistency with his own campaign’s fundraising policy. The
ban applies to future fundraising, meaning the party won’t have to
return money it has already raised from lobbyists and PACs.
“Today as the Democratic nominee for president, I am announcing that
going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same
standard — we will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists,” Obama
said at a town-hall meeting in Bristol, Va.
McCain’s senior advisers are former lobbyists, including campaign
manager Rick Davis. McCain was stung last month by the disclosure that
two advisers — now gone — had worked for a firm that had represented
the military junta in Myanmar, also known as Burma, which has
restricted foreign assistance for cyclone victims.
Somehow, you forgot to include a few paragraphs from the Fox News piece. For example, you included the paragraph about the RNC having more money than the DNC, but missed the one that explains that Obama has raised far more money than McCain:
ReplyDeleteThat Republican advantage is overshadowed by Obama’s sizable edge over presumed Republican nominee John McCain. At the end of May, McCain had raised $115 million and had $31.5 million in the bank. Obama has not announced his May totals, but at the end of April had raised $264 million and had $46.5 million in the bank.
You might also have included the fact that McCain has kicked lobbyists out of his campaign staff:
The Arizona senator instituted a new lobbying policy that says no campaign staffer can be a registered lobbyist...
or that Obama does accept money from state lobbyists and lobbyists' spouses and has former lobbyists on his staff as well:
Obama’s ban on lobbyists money is not ironclad. He does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. He has had unpaid advisers with federal lobbying clients, and some campaign officials also previously had lobbying jobs.
Finally, it might have been worthwhile to note that the DNC won't really suffer from losing the specific contributions of federal lobbyists themselves:
The new fundraising policy is not expected to hurt the party’s fundraising ability because lobbyists and PACs do not constitute a major source of money.
Lobbying is sure to be an issue in this campaign, especially with both candidates' histories of attacking special interest involvement in Washington. If you really want to follow the money on this topic, though, it is important to make sure you set out all of the facts, not just the facts that are convenient to one side.
Jake, You are keeping me honest. Two Comments:
ReplyDelete1. I think nearly everyone knows Obama is out fundraising EVERYONE at this point. Check this out from the Atlantic Montly: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/obama-finance.
2. Why are is the no lobbyist/PAC money only expected to hurt the Republicans and not the Democrats? Why is that kind of money a "major source of money" for only the RNC?
We should get together soon.
Responses:
ReplyDelete1. I think you're right about that. Obama is a fundraising machine and everyone knows it.
2. While I agree the Fox News article could leave the impression that the RNC relies more on PAC money than the DNC, the truth is actually the other way around. Here's a quote from the Center for Responsive Politics (link:http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/06/obama-puts-lobbyists-pacs-on-d.html:
In the 2004 election, PACs provided about 10 percent of the DNC's total fundraising, or about $31 million. So far in 2008, less than 3 percent of the committee's money has come from PACs, or $2.1 million, but forgoing PAC money for the rest of the election leaves a lot of money from labor unions' PACs, especially, on the table. The DNC's opposition, the better-financed Republican National Committee, has been less reliant on PAC money--about 1 percent in both '04 and '08. (Will we see John McCain prod the RNC to match the Democrats' pledge? It wouldn't cost Republicans much to do so.)
I think the question you have to ask yourself about that last point is: now that you know that the Democrats rely more on PAC money than the Republicans, do you still think that PAC money represents a reason to vote against a party? :)
And the banter for clarification continues!
ReplyDeleteI read that article and concluded that the national conventions are not the center of the issue regarding PAC/lobbyist contributions. The campaigns of the candidates are.
In this election, the lobbying industry's contributions have barely exceeded $50,000 to the DNC and $135,000 to the RNC. (Lobbyists probably find better returns on their investments when they give directly to politicians.)
So the DNC had more of its money raised from PAC/lobbyist money in 2004 (10%) compared to the RNC (1%). Currently, the RNC has raised over 2.5 times as much from that source as the DNC. Regardless of these numbers, we both know they are peanuts compared to how much the candidate campaigns are raising.
So 2 questions remain outstanding:
1. How much PAC and federal, registered lobbyist money as McCain received directly? We know Obama has received none.
2. How much non-federal and/or unregistered lobbyist money have they both raised?
I don't think that either question addresses the original point of your post, which was that RNC reliance on PAC/lobbyist money somehow demonstrated the Republican Party's corruption (or that Obama's decision to eliminate this funding from the DNC displayed his virtue). If PAC/lobbyist money were as tainted as you suggested, then the DNC's past reliance (10 percent in 2004) would make them far more suspect than the RNC (at 1 percent). However, I agree with you that it seems that PAC and lobbyist support of the committees doesn't seem like that big a deal this year, given the small percentage and dollar amounts given to each party.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the amount of PAC and registered lobbyist money (two different types of sources) given directly to candidates, some information is available at the Center for Responsive Politics site, opensecrets.org. It appears that John McCain has raised around $650,000 from "lobbyists" and Barrack Obama has raised about $150,000, though it is likely that state-based lobbyists are included in that group. PAC money makes up one percent of McCain's funding (nearly $1 million) and none of Obama's. I think you'll agree that, while McCain has certainly raised more, such a small amount of money is chump change to both campaigns and is unlikely to really sway the political decisions of either candidate, which is presumably the concern your original post was expressing.
That said, the Open Secrets site is really very interesting to examine for the amount that different industries give to candidates and other information. By all means, check out the candidates and see who wants them to win enough that they will donate money, but don't get carried away.
Finally, it seems to me that we haven't even touched on the important question of whether lobbyists or PACs shouldn't be allowed to support a candidate, given that they sometimes represent the very real interests of American citizens. I saw a speech by a man who registered as a lobbyist specifically so he could visit legislators to ask for funding for a residential youth center for homeless teens; should he be barred from financially supporting candidates that he believes in? Should candidates reject his support lest the voters consider it tainted?
[I'll make this my last comment on this post so that you can spend your time posting new and interesting stuff rather than responding to my varied ramblings here. :) ]
I agree that we have become too simplistic in our use of the word "lobbyist". I have heard similar things about distinguishing what is being lobbied for as there is a wide range of reasons/causes. This point needs to be made all across the political spectrum.
ReplyDeleteAnd I like pushing for the truth behind the sound bytes as well as asking the more difficult, complex questions - such as that of lobbyists. We have to do politics better than what we've done so far.
I wasn't trying to have the last word - I thought this was a point well worth ending on.