Washington Post: The $1 Million Bundler Hillary needs to disclose names of her campaign financiers

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400955.html


The $1 Million Bundler
Sen. Clinton -- and her rivals -- need to let the public know the names of their campaign financiers.

Monday, February 5, 2007; Page A14


THE NUMBER alone is breathtaking. As she launches her presidential fundraising juggernaut, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is tasking her biggest financial backers to bring in $1 million or more for her campaign, the New York Times reported. Truth be told, for a fundraiser with a fat Rolodex of rich friends, this isn't quite as daunting as it sounds. Having decided to opt out of the public financing system, not just for the primary campaign but for the general election as well, Ms. Clinton can bring in, or ask her fundraisers to bring in, two checks for the hassle of one: Donors can give the maximum $2,300 for the primary and another $2,300 for the general election. Add in a spouse, and you're at $9,200 a pop. A mere 109 of those, and, voila, the $1 million bundle.

While the senator's not to blame for this state of affairs, the audacity of the $1 million target does evoke distasteful memories of the Lincoln Bedroom rake-it-all-in mentality of the Clinton presidential years. And the unwillingness of her campaign to commit to listing its big bundlers -- as President Bush did during both of his campaigns -- is appalling. A Clinton spokesman couldn't say what the campaign plans to do about disclosure. A campaign organized enough to task fundraisers with bringing in $1 million ought to be organized enough to think in advance about revealing the identities of these, and lesser, financiers.

All this underscores how outmoded and inadequate the system of disclosure has become. Under current reporting rules, there is no way of determining that a bundler has brought in big bucks for a candidate; all that would show up on campaign filings would be the bundler's own contributions. Yet candidates are as indebted to the $1 million bundler as they are to the $1 million check writer.

President Bush, who perfected the system of organizing big bundlers during his two campaigns, with his $100,000 Pioneers and $200,000 Rangers, made it a practice to disclose the individuals on his Web site; most Democratic contenders during the 2004 campaign did likewise. That is an important standard for all candidates to meet during the 2008 campaign. The public is entitled to know the names of the bundlers and, at least within some range, the size of their bundles.

[Dr.Phool]

1. The article is bullshit.

And right off the bat, let me state that I don't like Hillary Clinton at all, but bullshit needs to be called bullshit.

The donors WILL be revealed when she files her first campaign finance report.

And as to declining public funds for the campaign, thus spending limits, George W. Bush started this trend, and was quickly followed by the Kerry campaign. I'm not sure about the other Dem candidates in '04.

[OKNancy]

5. FWIW - it's an editorial - unsigned

because someone at the WP doesn't want to be called on their bs.

[karynnj]

9. No, this is because it is an editorial from the paper's editor

not an op-ed by an outsider, speaking for themself not the paper.

[karynnj]

10. You're wrong on your history

In the primaries, Dean opted out first, then Kerry followed. Bush also opted out.

In the general election, both Kerry and Bush used federal money.

[karynnj]

2. These donors really need to be made public

Our current campaign finance system gives these big fundraisers too much power as it is. Keeping them secret makes it worse. I really hope Hillary changes her mind on this.

Anything secret can be spun as corrupt - whether it is or not - we need to be seen as the clean (or at least cleaner party).

[MonkeyFunk]

3. The donors WILL be made public

as per existing law.

[karynnj]

7. I hope you are right, but that is not what the WP says

They end the editorial with:

"Reporting this sort of critical information should not be left to the kindness of campaigns -- it should be required. The Federal Election Commission has it within its power to write regulations mandating such disclosure; Congress could also write the requirement into law. In the age of the $1 million bundler, the status quo is intolerable."

I know the WP can be wrong, but I think on this they are correct. The individual donors will be public. However, the fundraiser that gives a candidate the bundle of checks would not be public.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. correct

the donors will be made public, which is what I said.

There's no provision for making the "bundlers" public, nor do I really see a compelling reason to do so. There have ALWAYS been bundlers in political fundraising, and I find it more than a little odd that Clinton is the first person criticized for this practice.

[karynnj]

17. I do - I want to know who can come into the President's office

with him/her knowing that they had been able to direct that kind of money to the President.
Bush, as bad as he was provided this information - possibly to give the people credit.

The way we finance campaigns is broken and McCain/Feingold did almost as much damage as good. My position, as could be expected was influenced by Senator Kerry and he explained the problem - it is our democracy at risk. He gave this Senate speesch in 1997, when he and Wellstone reintroduced and sponsored the Clean Election bill the Senator Kerry authored.

"Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.
Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.
Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.
GPO's PDF
Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.
Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean el ections'' fu nded by ``clean mo ney,'' elections wh ere our citizens are the ones who make the difference"

[MonkeyFunk]

19. basically

you're asking for the names of anyone who volunteers for a campaign, which is what these fundraisers are - volunteers.

[karynnj]

23. There's a huge difference between volunterring and steering

$1 million dollars.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. Well

it depends on the value of the volunteering.

My point is that campaigns have used "bundlers" for decades. I think it's reasonable and practical to let the public know who donates to a campaign.

As to who volunteers? Well, there's a discussion to be had about that, but currently the law doesn't require it, and I've never heard of any movement to require disclosure of who these people are. I'm not even sure I see the need. As I said, it's one form of volunteering. A good media consultant could provide a million dollars worth of advice - should that be required in disclosures?

But the big issue I have with this article is WHY THE FUCK ON EARTH is Clinton being pegged as doing something wrong when this is a practice engaged in by ALL candidates for the last 20 or more years?

She hasn't even said she won't disclose this - the campaign simply said they don't know if they will or not.


Clinton isn't my first choice - in fact, she's about my third choice. But I find myself defending her against all sorts of ridiculous smears here, just because a) I admire her for what she's gone through and how she's endured it and b) I hate political "spin" and I hate it even moreso when it comes from our own side.

[karynnj]

31. I'm in agreement with you to some degree

I do think that if people are major bunderlers their names should be supplied - and that appeaars to be what was done in 2004. Hillary did make some comments on this - and soneone on her staff seemed to give the impression they were keeping it secret. If this was not intended they should immediately deny it.

If they intended to keep it private - that's their choice - because it is legal. I would be more comfortable if they did.

[ProudDad]

34. HERE's why the bundlers must be exposed!

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11460

'Instead of an election less dominated by cash, and consequently by those able to supply that cash, the 2004 presidential election is shaping up to be the most expensive in American history. Meanwhile, corporate influence has become so pervasive that the very concept of impartial governance has been turned on its head: lobbyists have become government officials; and government officials have become lobbyists.

"If we know anything about the development of campaign finance laws," says Derek Willis, who tracks campaign finance for the Washington-based watchdog group the Center for Public Integrity, "it is that people will find holes."

The soft money of past elections has simply morphed into new avenues of political influence: through political organizations, ostensibly outside the party apparatus, but in fact playing the role the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and Republican National Convention (RNC) played in past elections; through huge convention funds with budgets that rival what used to be spent on entire elections; and through powerful Washington lobbyists. During the current election, the largest sums of corporate cash are flowing to candidates through a process called bundling.'

I've also read that many of the bundlers are corporate executives and owners who strong-arm their employees into "contributing", etc. It's the BUNDLERS who get the ear of the candidates and exert the strongest influence on their policies!


PUBLIC FINANCING OF ALL ELECTIONS and FORCING THE MEDIA TO SUPPLY FREE AIR TIME ON OUR AIRWAVES for our democracy are the ONLY SURE SOLUTIONS the the obscene status-quo!!!!

[Orangepeel]

33. The individual donors will be made public, of course

the editorial is calling for disclosure of who hands Clinton a stack of, say, 1000 checks each worth $1000.

That wouldn't necessarily be made public, if the campaign doesn't offer up the info. Just the names of the 1000 people would be.

I'd prefer the names be made public, but I'm not sure that it's standard practice (and I sure wouldn't call not doing so "appalling").

[MaineDem]

4. They will NOT be kept secret

This article is pretty much BS.

FEC requires that donors be listed once they contribute. These people will be identified.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Identified as individual donors, not as bundlers. Reread the editorial.

[The Count]

15. The ol' "Lincoln bedroom list" vs "I won't tell ya" double standard

I can't believe you're falling for this again

[karynnj]

18. Not true - I want things open and honest on both sides

I refuse to accept without question things from Democrats that I won't accept from Republicans.

[The Count]

20. I don't recall Kerry's donors being posted. remember Scaiffe's bank though

lending him that 4 million after the media made him king. You know, Scaiffe -of the Arkansas project reputation. You chip on the shoulder kerrybots are as transparent as the freepers. They were also shocked that Clinton lied about the blow job. It's very disgraceful what you are doing - and that comes from a non-Hillary voter. Kerry bumped 2 of my choice candidates from the race and I never dedicated so much energy to revenge.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. do you have a reference

to Scaife lending Kerry 4 million? A quick google search didn't turn up such a fact.

[karynnj]

24. Spending more time than warranted on google - it is a bogus charge

I found that Scaife, not surprisingly, gave a lot of money to the SBVT and he is a partial owner of Newsmax, which also slimed Kerry as did the other RW media that Scaife contributed to.

The closest thing I could find was that the mortgage that Kerry got on his home for around $6 million was from a NE part of the Mellon Bank. The Mellons do not run the Mellon bank and they haven't for decades. His mother was Sarah Mellon and per Wikidepia:

"Scaife's mother, Sarah, was an alcoholic, as were he and his sister Cordelia. Scaife was affected by the family's poor relationship with the Mellon family, and came to despise the Mellon family name. Still, he inherited a good part of the Mellon fortune when his mother died. A portion of the fortune was placed in trust funds and the rest in foundations. Charitable foundations are required to disburse at least 5% of their assets annually, forcing Scaife to become a philanthropist.".

The Mellons, like the Heinzes, did much good in Pittsburg. Carnegie Mellon's name is not a co-incidence. Kerry getting a loan from a Boston bank that had decades before been bought by the Mellon group of banks does not connect him to Scaife.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Yep

I, too, spent too much time trying to check this out.

But of course, the person who posted this lie won't come back and cop to it.

Who needs swiftboaters when we have DU?

[karynnj]

29. Yes, the charge seemed very outlandish

Senator Kerry has a longer, more consistent history of being hated by the right than any other living politician other than possibly Ted Kennedy. They also do not underestimate his intelligence, eloquence or ability to lead - that's why they wanted him destroyed since 1971.

Not to mention that Kerry is cleaner than most on fund raising, having run 4 Senate races with no PAC contributions and having spoken of the dangers of the way we finance the elections, which can lead to even the most scupulous person having to return a check when it is challanged.

I assume the point was that they knew I was a Kerry supporter, so they took a comment that was not directed against Hillary, but said that for the sake of the party we can't afford to be seen as the more secretive party on these issues. So, apparently, claiming the RW financed Kerry was his counter attack.

Thanks for acting him for a link. (I responded because I knew Kerry would not be involved in something so slimy.)

[karynnj]

22. As the OP said,

both Kerry and Bush did make this information public. I have no idea what you are talking about with Kerry's loan. The only loan Kerry got was from a bank with his half of the house as collateral - the loan was completely public, as was the evaluation of the house - to prove he was not getting money illegally based on Teresa's assets. The only question anyone had was how Kerry would repay it if he lost, which everyone thought would happen, as he could lose his house - and if Teresa paid it, she could be accused of an illegal contribution.

If you are speaking of Dean, Kerry had $6 million while Dean had $40 million. Kerry's mortgage of his house simply gave him enough money to continue. He won because he convinced people to vote for him.

I do think it was a serious error of judgement for Clinton to lie under oath because that shows a fundamental lack of respect to the law. He had an honest openning statement that spoke of it being an inappropriate relationship that he should simply have repeated.

This has nothing to do with Hillary - I would have said the same thing if it were Kerry - I don't think access should be bought, but realiasing that it is, I at least would like to know who bought it. I did not post this article, I simply commented on it.

Nothing I wrote is anti- Hillary - I wrote that I hope she does not do this and as I said, if things were different I would post the same thing about Kerry AND include comments from 1984 onward asking him to live up to his own words.

[wyldwolf]

8. get ALL the money you can, Hillary!

When the Swift Boat type attack ads start, you'll be able to afford 10 ads in response to each one!

[AtomicKitten]

28. And she WILL punch them back --- HARD

[Tellurian]

12. For now we're dealing with the 'not so'-swift boaters..

only requirement: intestinal fortitude!

[The Count]

13. yeah, because we know all W contributors, in fact every candidate's

Like Abramoff, Enron et al...always disclosed...

[glitch]

14. Remarkable that they can say "rake-it-all-in mentality of the Clinton presidential years"

after seeing what Bush has done. To do that with a straight face must require incredible blinders.
This editorial should be an embarrassment to the Post, but we all know where that bar is now, I bet they didn't even pause before printing it.

[HuffleClaw]

16. The public is entitled ???

bullshit

[The Count]

27. Yup. We know everything about the Bush administration, right?

Somehow, Hillary's donors are more important to DU-ers than, say, the energy comission documents, the 9.11 documants, the info thet lead to war in Iraq, or will lead to the war in Tran. The Kerrybots spoketh.

[IndianaGreen]

30. The American people have the right to know who owns Hillary!

It was no secret that Rupert Murdoch raised money to ensure Hillary kept her Senate seat, a seat Hillary would use as a stepping stone to the White House.

[SaveElmer]

32. Big fat strawman...

If everyone here would take two minutes out of their precious Hillary bashing time, they would know that EVERY ONE of these contributors legally must be reported to the FEC...

SO this self-righteous rant is just that...a rant...

[ProudDad]

35. It's the BUNDLERS who exert the influence

the actual "contributers" are the pawns in this game...