A Numbers Game

We have been trying for more than three decades to reform campaign finance, but the private money of large donors continues to slip through our fingers and into the candidates' coffers. Breaking stories on National Public Radio ("Obama's $150 Million Changing Rules of the Game") and the New York Times ("In Fine Print, a Proliferation of Large Donors") in the last two days have revealed the staggering amount of personal donations the candidates or their joint fund-raising committees have received.
A history of campaign finance reform: In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act limiting the use of a candidate's personal or family money during a campaign, hoping to open the race to anyone, no matter the candidate's family fortune. FECA also created Political Action Committees (PACs) to raise money on behalf of candidates, and it provided for public disclosure of funds raised. The Act was shortly amended in 1974 to create contribution ceilings, spending limits, federal subsidies and funding (public financing), and a Federal Election Commission. A remaining loophole that said that party committees could raise and spend unlimited amounts of money created the problem of "soft money," which was controversial during Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996. In 2001, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act closed this loophole, raised individual donor limits to compensate, and rescinded limits on "non-political groups." It is noteworthy that Senator McCain, along with Senator Feingold, was a key drafter and supporter of this bill.
Fast-forward to our 2008 general election campaign. Senator McCain accepts public financing, limiting his coffers to $84 million. Senator Obama becomes the first major party presidential candidate to refuse public financing since 1974 when it was instated. In September alone, the Obama campaign raises $150 million. Initially, this was reported as the influx from 632,000 new donors (bringing the total donor roll to 3 million), the average donation size being just $86 (NPR, 20 Oct). This seems to convey a public mandate: If 10% of the population is donating to, let alone supporting, the Obama campaign, and if the average donor could very well be any "poor" college student or blue-collar worker, Senator Obama's candidacy certainly seems to be mandated by a sweeping majority. Could this be the most publicly-supported campaign in our generation? Has the Average Joe (not "Six Pack" or "the Plumber") really beaten out interest groups as the most powerful and populous donor?
Today's New York Times undermines these hopes. An analysis of campaign finance reports filed last week reveals the large impact of individual contributors writing checks that would fund our college education. Donors from industries with an interest in Washington policies have written checks over $25,000 to the joint fund-raising committees of both campaigns. The largest sector donating to the candidates? Securities and investments, including executives of recently bailed-out groups like AIG and Lehman Brothers. The Obama campaign's record contributions in September were helped by over 600 donations over $25,000. The McCain campaign has accepted contributions as large as $70,000.
The New York Times article goes on to specify the interests involved, explain the distribution of these single checks, and voice the worries of campaign finance watchdogs who rightly say these contributions "undermine the whole spirit of the system." Technically, these contributions are legal under today's laws; should they remain that way?
Open questions to the two candidates: How do these large contributions comply with the spirit of campaign finance reform? How will these donors sway your policy initiatives? Explain to the American public why you consider this to be ethical?
Open questions to the donors: What political clout does your donation give you? Why donate these large amounts to a political campaign? What level of CEO salary at a failing financial institution allows you to donate this amount? You are obviously in the upper income bracket; is the amount you donated equivalent to a 3% tax increase?
A moral imperative for the public: We must demand not only transparency in campaign finance but also responsibility and ethical behavior: an executive accepting tens of thousands of dollars from one economic sector cannot remain objective in his/her policy initiatives. Our elected officials must be accountable to the public, not to industries and special interests.
Please read these articles in their entirety for a full view:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95882376
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/us/politics/21donate.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin