http://www.calpirgstudents.org/reports/democracy/untitled http://www.calpirgstudents.org/reports/democracy/untitled/raising-the-limits-a-bad-bet-for-campaign-finance-reform In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which offered some significant reforms such as banning unlimited ‘soft money’ contributions to political parties and clamping down on electioneering spending by outside interests. Unfortunately, BCRA also doubled the amount of money that an individual may give to a federal candidate from $2,000 to $4,000 per election cycle. Proponents of the bill downplayed the impact of higher contribution limits or even suggested that they would make congressional elections more competitive. As the 2006 elections near, we decided to analyze the impact of raising individual contribution limits on the 2004 congressional and presidential elections.Using Federal Election Commission data on federal candidate fundraising from individuals, parties, and political action committees, we found that BCRA’s doubling of contribution limits did not deliver the promised benefit of more competitive elections and may be, in part, responsible for several harmful emerging trends. Races did not become more competitive; in fact, incumbents continued to out-raise challengers and win re-election at high rates. The data show not only a continued electoral dominance of the largest fundraisers, but also an increase in the disparity between winners and losers—between candidates with access to wealthy donors and those without.Key findings include the following:• The biggest fundraisers continued to dominate federal elections. Congressional candidates who raised the most money won their elections 97% of the time—up slightly from 2002. General election winners in 2004 out-raised losers by a margin of 3 to 1.• The funding gap between winners and losers in congressional contests widened. In 2004, winners in congressional elections out-raised losers by $281 million in individual contributions, an increase of $65 million over 2002. In contributions of $1,000+, the winners had a $177 million advantage over their less well-heeled opponents, an increase of $35 million over 2002.• Higher contribution limits failed to help challengers. In 2004, congressional incumbents out-raised challengers $239 million to $61 million in $1,000+ contributions. The incumbent fundraising advantages fueled a re-election rate of 96% for Senators (up from just under 89% in 2002) and 98% for members of the House (up slightly from 97% in 2002).• BCRA’s hard money increases negated the effect of a promising surge in small donor participation. Individuals contributing $200 or less gave $146 million more to congressional and presidential candidates in 2004 than in 2000. But, the overall clout of small donors did not increase between these two election cycles. Due to $446 million in additional contributions by large donors, including $345 million in contributions of at least $1,000, small donors still accounted for just 28% of federal candidates’ individual funds.• The average itemized contribution to congressional and presidential candidates jumped 29% over last cycle, after remaining stable for 15 years. Itemized contributions to federal candidates averaged $770 this cycle, up from $599 in 2002 and $598 in 2000. The average increase over the previous 15 years was just 2% per cycle.• No evidence suggests that doubling individual contribution limits reduced fundraising time. Proponents of increasing the individual contribution limits often argued that it would reduce the amount of time candidates would have to spend fundraising. The data from the 2004 election do not support this assertion. If higher limits reduced fundraising time, we would expect candidates to raise the “necessary” sum by accepting fewer contributions in larger amounts. The number of donors who gave itemized contributions ($200 or more) to congressional candidates continued to increase this cycle to approximately 517,000, up from approximately 465,000 in 2002.Higher contribution limits to candidates and political committees do not help grassroots candidates or challengers. They do not improve fairness or competition and are detrimental to achieving the goals of real reform. The myth that such a change is relatively harmless and, therefore, an easy or acceptable tradeoff for other reforms threatens the ultimate impact of campaign finance reform and may well undermine the public’s support and belief that real reform will ever reduce the influence of money in American politics. http://www.calpirgstudents.org/reports/democracy/untitled/raising-the-limits-a-bad-bet-for-campaign-finance-reform Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600 http://www.calpirgstudents.org/reports/democracy/untitled/look-whos-not-coming-to-washington-qualified-candidates-shut-out-by-big-money Large contributions made by a small fraction of Americans unduly influence who runs for office and who wins elections in the United States. Without personal wealth or access to networks of wealthy contributors, many qualified and credible candidates are locked out of contention for federal office—often before voters have the opportunity to register their preferences or hear competing points of view.Money was as important to candidates in the most recent congressional elections as it has ever been. Our analysis of Federal Election Commission (FEC) campaign finance data for the 2004 election cycle reveals the following:Ninety-one (91) percent of 2004 congressional primary candidates who raised the most money won their races.Sixty-five (65) percent of all congressional primary elections were uncontested. Anecdotal evidence suggests the role of money in campaigns plays a significant part in discouraging candidates from running.Sixty-three (63) percent of 2004 congressional primary candidates’ individual donations came in contributions of at least $1,000—from just 0.08 percent of the voting-age population.Moreover, according to the Federal Election Commission, campaign fundraising continues to increase at a rate greater than inflation. Winning congressional candidates raised nearly 50 percent more in the 2004 cycle than in a comparable period during the 2002 cycle.In order to put a human face on this data, we surveyed federal candidates who dropped out of races, lost primaries, or lost general elections. The candidates profiled in this report cite money as a primary reason why they lost or pulled out of their races entirely. Many of the unsuccessful candidates profiled are at least as credible and qualified as the eventual winners. What they lack is something altogether different—personal wealth, access to networks of wealthy donors, or policy positions that appeal to large contributors.Several candidates made powerful statements about the state of our democracy and our campaign finance system:“Democracy should never be for sale to the highest bidder. But democracy IS for sale to the highest bidder—and our democracy is very ill served as a result. … There’s never been real campaign finance reform, only campaign finance reform perpetrated by the good ol’ boys and girls, which puts those without wealth at a disadvantage and prohibits them from challenging the status quo.”- Charmaine Caccioppi, Democratic Candidate in Louisiana’s 3rd District Open Primary“The sad thing is that in America today if it’s going to take $2 million to win, then normal people can’t run anymore. You either have to be very, very wealthy or very, very bought.”- Janice Bowling, Republican Nominee for Tennessee’s 4th District“[The system] protects incumbents because there’s so much money in the system. Money is tilted towards incumbents, so there’s huge financial disincentives [for challengers] . . . Being a maverick outsider is not realistic when you’re up against a $1 million ad buy.”- Jeff Steinborn, Democratic Primary Candidate in New Mexico’s 2nd District“[Running for Congress] is such a daunting task that it becomes a huge barrier for ordinary people who want to run. It’s a business—you need a professional fundraiser ... We have a professional political class [in Congress] and we have a professional political class getting them elected. Outsiders need not apply.”- Mark Binder, Democratic Primary Candidate in Rhode Island’s 1st District“[Fundraising] is a big hurdle. I know a lot of people who would run—and I know people who have run once, but then can’t do it again because they owe money [as a result].”- Dr. Inam Rahman, Republican Primary Candidate in Hawaii’s 2nd District“My opponent raised 65 percent of his money from outside special interests at $10,000 a whack, while I’m collecting money from Sally and Joe.”- Brian Hamel, Republican Nominee for Maine’s 2nd District“[Our campaign finance system] benefits incumbents who are in safe districts and are in a position to really help some very narrow special interests. In a broader sense, it hurts everybody because it naturally makes [officeholders] inclined to give better service to those who give [them] more money. Representation is supposed to be one vote per person, not based on how much money you have…If you took the money out of politics, it would change the whole dynamic and produce a much healthier, more responsive, democracy.”- Ben Konop, Democratic Nominee for Ohio’s 4th District“If we think we are a democracy, we’re deluding ourselves ... We purport to be an example of democracy around the world, but in fact we have an oligarchy ... I would hope and pray that we can take can take money out of politics . . .”- Leigh Pomeroy, Democratic-Farmer- Labor Party Nominee for Minnesota’s 1st District http://www.calpirgstudents.org/reports/democracy/untitled/look-whos-not-coming-to-washington-qualified-candidates-shut-out-by-big-money Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600 http://www.calpirgstudents.org/reports/democracy/untitled/toward-a-small-donor-democracy-the-past-and-future-of-incentives-for-small-political-contributions Long before voters register their preferences on Election Day, the flow of political money determines which candidates are able to mount viable campaigns for federal office. Providing public incentives for small political contributions could help average Americans play a more meaningful role in influencing who has the resources to run effective campaigns and win public office.Most modern political campaigns are funded predominantly by a small number of large donors rather than a cross section of the American public. Congressional candidates in 2002, for example, collected more than half of the money they raised from individuals in contributions of at least $1000—from just 0.09% of the voting age public.Our current campaign finance system grants these contributors disproportionate influence over who runs for office and who wins elections—and thereby who dictates public policy. Grassroots candidates who take positions that do not appeal to wealthy donors have difficulty competing with well-funded opponents.Finally, many ordinary citizens are alienated from the process as they perceive that their contributions—and even votes—matter less than the large donations that define the political field of play.Reform advocates frequently discuss setting contribution limits at levels that average Americans can afford to give, establishing spending limits to dampen the fundraising “arms race,” and providing direct public financing of candidate campaigns as potential solutions to the problem of big money dominance in politics. Another solution that has received significantly less scholarly and public attention is providing public incentives to encourage small contributions. By leveraging the power of the Internet and harnessing promising recent fundraising trends, it may be possible to encourage a wave of small contributions that will help balance out the undue influence of large donors.This paper provides a thorough canvass of existing knowledge about small contribution incentive programs at the federal level and throughout the five states that feature similar initiatives—Arkansas, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, and Virginia. Our conclusion is that—especially in the new age of Internet fundraising—a well-designed program can play a significant role in increasing the role of small contributors in our democracy and serve as a helpful tool for grassroots candidates seeking to run campaigns geared towards average voters, not wealthy donors. We make several recommendations about how to best design a contribution incentive program to accomplish these goals. Our most significant findings are outlined below. http://www.calpirgstudents.org/reports/democracy/untitled/toward-a-small-donor-democracy-the-past-and-future-of-incentives-for-small-political-contributions Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600