Public financing now!

By Jennifer J. Foster

Published: February 20, 2009

Ever since I heard the news about ALLEGEDLY fraudulent financier Robert Allen Stanford, I’ve been wanting to connect the dots for you between the man they’re calling “Mini-Madoff” and my ever-strengthening support for publicly financed elections.

Consider this, from the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics:

Between its PAC and its employees, Stanford Financial Group has given $2.4 million to federal candidates (including both candidate committees and leadership PACs), parties and committees since 2000, with 65 percent of that going to Democrats. Stanford and his wife, Susan, have given $931,100 out of their own pockets, with 78 percent going to Democrats. The top recipients of cash in the current Congress include Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who received $45,900; Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who collected $41,375; and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who brought in $28,150.

CRP provides a complete list of Stanford-funded congressmen, and there are EIGHTY-SEVEN—that’s 8-7—members on the list. SHOCKINGLY, they include the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee. Come on, folks; let’s call this what it is: A softer version of pay-to-play. Spread the money around, make a lot of friends and watch them waive through your legislation and kill the things you hate.

(Incidentally, the ranking members of both of those committees are Republicans from Alabama: U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby has gotten $14,000 and U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus has gotten $2,000 from Stanford and/or Stanford-controlled organizations since 2000.)

Ho hum. Just another day in Washington.

So I was already planning this post when, lo and behold, what do I see on this morning’s wire?

From USA Today:

The deepening economic recession hasn’t stopped members of Congress from throwing lavish events to raise campaign money for the 2010 election.

This weekend, donors to a political action committee run by Rep. Jeb Hensarling are invited to the Snake River Lodge & Spa near Jackson Hole, Wyo., for a ski outing hosted by the Texas Republican. The minimum donation: $2,500, according to the invitation, which touts opportunities to take sleigh rides to an elk refuge and snowmobile excursions to the Continental Divide.

Skiing also is on the agenda at a fundraiser this weekend in Vail, Colo., for Democrat Ed Perlmutter. Donations range from $2,400 for an individual to $5,000 for a political action committee.

Donors seeking warmer climes could have joined veteran Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii for a “Weekend of Aloha” fundraiser at a resort on Honolulu’s Waikiki Beach. Inouye’s event, held last weekend, started two days after lawmakers passed President Obama’s $787 billion plan aimed at jump-starting the economy. Lawmakers are on a week-long break and return Monday.

In other words, regardless of how they feel about spending billions that belong to you on economic programs that no one is sure will work (Inouye was a conferee on the stimulus, for goodness’ sake!), they’re all in agreement that they have to go raise some dough to go back and to it again.

Why are they doing this? Anyone? Anyone?

Aides to the lawmakers said the events are driven by the need to raise growing amounts of campaign money. House and Senate candidates raised nearly $1.4 billion to fund campaigns in 2008, up from roughly $1 billion eight years earlier, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

“Almost every member of Congress is fundraising all the time,“ said Julie DeWoody, the finance director of Perlmutter’s campaign. “It’s the reality of running for office and how expensive campaigns are.“

Did you catch that? Almost every member of Congress is fundraising ALL THE TIME. That comes from someone trying to get her legislator re-elected! That doesn’t leave a whole lot of time for legislating.

... unless they do it all at once (see above).

Here’s the deal: Campaign finance is spiraling out of control. Think about those CRP numbers: $1.4 BILLION for House and Senate elections, just in 2008, up $1 BILLION from just eight years ago.

What can we expect will be spent in 2016? $3 billion? More?

Until we can devise a system that will free our lawmakers from the shackles of the money in politics, we can have no reasonable expectation that the legislation and regulations they produce will be uninfluenced by that tsunami of cash.

Let’s back qualifying up to four to six months before the primary, shore up qualifying standards, give qualifiers all a flat amount of cash and turn them loose. When it’s gone, it’s gone. Primary winners get a new infusion to square off in the general election.

And don’t get hung up on the idea that they’d be using your tax dollars to run for office. They’re already using it for everything else (see ginormous stimulus package and mortgage bailout plan). If we do our job as voters, they’ll be more careful about spending our money once they’re in office.

Remember that whole marketplace of ideas thing? Let’s get the money out of the way and give the marketplace a chance to work.

Either democracy is worth protecting, or it isn’t.