Campaign Finance Law

With Rod Blagojevich and Charlie Rangel in the news and under pressure from the media, now is the time for the House and Senate GOP caucuses to push a real transparency and ethics agenda. On January 6th, both Houses will meet and begin the work of passing rules. We need to have some specific proposals, and this is not something that I follow well. Furthermore, the GOP ought to shoot big here. Frankly, we aren't going to run Congress for a while, so let's max this out.

Imagine some proposals:

First, in both bodies, allow individuals to submit ethics complaints and require the various ethics committees to officially reject complaints.

Second, faster and more complete campaign finance proposals. All contributions down to $5, or even just all contributions, should be disclosed. Electronic contributions should be disclosed within 72 hours, and checks should be disclosed within 72 hours of deposit. These would be real-time disclosed on the FEC website. This would solve the problem that the Sunlight Foundation and others have tried to address with S. 223.

Third, put video of all publicly accessible business meetings online. I am sure that C-SPAN and Google would be happy to help. I know that many committees keep video of markups, but release neither the video nor transcripts.

Fourth, I am sure that there are things that are specific to disclosure of financial interests that we have learned out of the Rangel affair. Throw that in.

Only the second item needs to be implemented in law. If it got to Barack Obama's desk, he would have to sign it, and it would be embarassing.

The others can be the basis of a rules fight at the beginning of the session. Make these new Democrats who ran on ethics vote against transparency and for their leadership or against their leadership.

Furthermore, let's seperate Obama from the Demcratic Congress. Let's praise his transparency measures, like disclosing meetings of his transition teams, while smacking the Congressional majorities around.

So we know that fake people are registering to vote, via the AP:

The stories are almost comical: Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, registered to vote on Nov. 4. The entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team, signed up to go the polls — in Nevada.

We know that sometimes, fake people vote fraudulently (note that it was by absentee. Hard to vote as Mickey Mouse in person, but it is really easy by absentee):

Republicans released details for 10 of those votes. The registration cards that were filled out had no social security numbers, drivers license numbers or birthdates for the voters.

We know that sometimes, fake people give to campaigns fraudulently.

Two thoughts. The first is that there should be accountability for this. As Patrick  just noted, Barack Obama raised $150m last month, and only half of that money is disclosed. Now, I seriously doubt that Obama's campaign is engaged in fraud. But they seem  uninterested in identifying it.

They should, like the McCain campaign, put all that information online, regardless of how much was given, including all the information about address, employer, etc. It's not that hard. They have the technology to do it. When he is getting $75m in a month from sources that are not publically identified, that's a problem. In theory, these are all different people, but given the possibility for fraud (temporary credit card numbers can make it even harder to check), this does create yet another kind of crisis of legitimacy surrounding this election.

Second,  Obama has destroyed the public financing system, handing conservatives a win on the policy, even if a substantial loss on the politics. Democrats said Republicans would do it, but they did. This is a good thing, long-term, and it should be replaced by full-disclosure of contributions within 24 hours of receipt of the donation. The easiest thing in the world with today's technology. And it would allow individuals, groups, and the press to address the legitimacy issues in Obama's donations (and others in the future).

New technology overcomes old challenges. It also raises new ones. Nuclear plants generate the most electricity but have cleanup questions. The Internet has overcome and created challenges, too. Howard Dean used the internet to raise money at unheard of levels. Ken Timmerman reports Barack Obama’s campaign raised $427 million dollars, much of it coming via the internet.

Almost half of the $427 million came from donations of less than $200. Campaigns don’t have to identify donors until their aggregate giving exceeds $200. When giving was by check or cash, it was harder to cheat; cash deposits had to be accounted for and checks left paper trails. Credit card internet giving is the new way around the law.

Timmerman writes about an Obama donor, “Good Will”, who gave $17,375 in over 1,000 donations under $200, far exceeding the limit for individuals. The FEC has ordered the campaign to return the excess money, and they’ve started to. They’ve got thousands to go! Warner Todd Huston writes of testing the foreign donation firewalls of both Obama and McCain. Only one campaign had any checks on the process in place.

Complicating matters, current monitoring and regulating mechanisms are outpaced by technology. The FEC didn’t find “Good Will”. Activists did. Giving is at T1 speeds. Enforcement is stuck on dialup.

“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.

If Presidential campaigns have these issues, what of lesser publicized and scrutinized down-ticket races?