Originally by Andy Wilson at TexasVox.org

Today’s New York Times reported that life is not all peaches and cream for the Obama campaign after they opted out of the presidential public financing system.  (See Article “Straining to Reach Goal, Obama Presses Donors“)

Pushing a fund-raiser later this month, a finance staff member sent a sharply worded note last week to Illinois members of its national finance committee, calling their recent efforts “extremely anemic.”

The signs of concern have become evident in recent weeks as early fund-raising totals have suggested that Mr. Obama’s decision to bypass public financing may not necessarily afford him the commanding financing advantage over Senator John McCain that many had originally predicted.

But the campaign is struggling to meet ambitious fund-raising goals it set for the campaign and the party. It collected in June and July far less from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s donors than originally projected. Moreover, Mr. McCain, unlike Mr. Obama, will have the luxury of concentrating almost entirely on campaigning instead of raising money, as Mr. Obama must do.

It is not yet clear whether the Obama campaign will be able to ratchet up its fund-raising enough in the final two months of the campaign to make up the difference.

Public financing is a boon to any politician who accepts it, as it allows her or him to run free from the strings attached to big-dollar-donations and to focus the campaign’s time on where it should be spent: connecting with voters.  This is why when I explained Public Financing to Congressman Nick Lampson, currently running in the most competitive House race in the country, he was exuberant to think of a time when he would no longer have to dial for dollars. Considering the other two competitive House races in Texas, in CD 7 and 10, think of the race it would be if the campaigns were on equal footing moneywise and ideas, not dollars, affected the outcome of the race.

And, if you don’t think that money doesn’t change policy, think again. Every issue, from the War in Iraq to Consumer Protection to Global Warming to Education has powerful monied interests who are willing to pour money into the debate to get what they want.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, McCain, once a champion of campaign finance reform, is still soliciting donations to his campaign, even though he has already accepted public financing money.  A loophole allows the campaign to get money for “compliance” issues, but really it’s a backdoor for the same kind of big money influence peddling we’ve seen so far, as recently as the last two weeks at the GOP and Dem Conventions.

Kate Kaye, the author of the blog who brought this to our attention, explained it best:

According to a disclaimer on the McCain campaign site, “Because the McCain-Palin Campaign is participating in the presidential public funding system, it may not receive contributions for the any candidate’s election. However, federal law allows the McCain-Palin Campaign’s Compliance Fund to defray legal and accounting compliance costs and preserve the Campaign’s public grant for media, mail, phones, and get-out-the-vote programs. Contributions to McCain-Palin Victory 2008 will go to the Compliance Fund, and to participating party committees for Victory 2008 programs.”

That Victory fund is operated by the compliance fund, the Republican National Committee, and the Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania GOPs.

Hmmm…I wonder what states are in the most contention this year….

The lesson is clear: we should support full, airtight public financing NOW and we should make our leaders accept it– a “Great divorce” of Money and Politics.

Obama originally opted out of public financing by citing that the presidential system was “broken” and that he had created a “parallel public financing system” via the netroots.  This, along with McCain’s continued fund-raising, is an argument to shore up the presidential system, not scrap it.

We can pass full public financing laws.  We can keep elections fair at the local, state, congressional, and federal level.  Currently, the Fair Elections Now Act sits idle in Congress with some serious inertial problems.  We should change that, and call our leaders and ask them to sign on to Fair Elections.  We can make it a priority of the next Congress, insuring that future elections are clean and fair.

by Eric Encarnacion

Over the last month, we've talked about the pervasive corporate presence at the national conventions and the ways that big-money special interests will try to influence politicians through their stomachs and their general taste for the good life. Now, with the Democratic National Convention in Denver this week, the evidence is in: Corporations and their lobbyists are throwing lavish parties for lawmakers. They're hard to miss, as the mainstream media has started covering them.

As ABC News has highlighted in its "Money Trail" segments, corporate lobbyists are sparing no expense in wining and dining our elected officials. Many are skirting new Congressional ethics rules with a wink and a nod. Top Denver chefs are preparing special dishes -- even inventing special spoons and flatware! -- so that dinners can qualify for a loophole in congressional ethics rules. Concerts and shows are being restructured on paper so that they're classified as "charity events" (complete with exclusive side entrances for elected officials!).

Two videos from ABC News provide a great overview. Featured in the clips are our friend Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation and our very own ethics expert, Craig Holman.

So what can you do to help keep our leaders focused on voters rather than corporate special interests? Learn more and take action at SayNoToLobbyists.org.

The Democratic Party Convention is now in full swing. As you might imagine, it's quite the jet-set party scene, with well-heeled lobbyists and corporate CEOs schmoozing with our members of Congress and other luminaries.

Like you, we're sick of special interests coming before voters - just look at the mess we're in thanks to this pay-to-play system. Big Oil, Big Pharma and other corporate titans have had their way with our government for too long.

That's why we're crashing their parties!

A gaping loophole is being exploited and millions of unregulated dollars are being funneled to the national party conventions through so-called nonpartisan "host committees." These committees claim to be helping Denver and the Twin Cities, but they are really just using the sizable donations for political purposes.

As we blogged previously, a new Public Citizen report reveals the extent to which political access is being bought by the "host committee" sponsors. As an added bonus, this type of influence peddling is also tax-deductible for donors like AT&T.

Our campaign finance laws need to be enforced. These loopholes must be closed. There will be dozens of events at both conventions sponsored by deep-pocketed special interests seeking to influence our elected officials. 

As The Hill reports, we've joined forces with other watchdogs to show up at these corporate-sponsored soirees and ask some tough questions about potential violations of our campaign finance and ethics laws.      

You can help. If you can be in Denver this week or the Twin Cities next week, then you can join our other party crashers in making sure the big wigs get the message that it's time to put voters first!

Here's more info on the party scene. Can't make it to the conventions?  You can follow some of the crashing here and at Party Time, throw your own party, or take a few minutes to take action.  To learn more, check out www.SayNoToLobbyists.org.

By Joe Newman, originally posted on Citizen Vox.

How much would you need to throw a great party for several thousand friends? Imagine what you could do with $1 miilion. The possibilities boggle the mind.

I’m thinking little meatballs served with 14-carat gold toothpicks. Now, imagine if you had $112 million at your disposal. That’s how much money corporate sponsors and lobbyists are contributing to this year’s Democratic and Republican conventions, events that have become less about the American political process and more about seeing who can throw the most lavish soirees.

A report released today by Public Citizen shows how corporations and lobbyists are exploiting loopholes in election law and congressional ethics rules to turn the conventions into a place where they can wine and dine lawmakers and lobby them away from Capitol Hill.

Some of these parties appear to cross the line and put lawmakers who attend in violation of their ethics rules, the report says. You can learn more and read the Public Citizen report at www.SayNoToLobbyists.org.

The Sunlight Foundation’s blog Party Time and the Campaign Finance Institute provide excellent resources to keep up with all the shenanigans. Party Time even has a list of the entertainment the Dems lined up next week in Denver, as well as how the GOP will get down later in the Twin Cities.

Looks like a lot of parties and not much real business. It all adds up to a week-long TV commercial for the candidates, bought and paid for by corporate America.

Don’t think for a minute, though, that these companies and lobbyists pony up all this cash without some sort of return on their investment. The underlying message to lawmakers is clear: Eat, drink, enjoy the show. Have a good time on us. And remember how well we treated you when we come calling about that legislation we don’t like or that government contract we want.

Want to know what you can do? Take action. Tell Congress to put voters first! Urge your members of Congress to stay away from big money at the conventions and honor our campaign finance and ethics laws.

When the welcome bags for the 2008 DNC national party convention were revealed earlier this month, bloggers took notice. Why? Because the bags are covered in corporate logos.

As blogger and New York Times Bestselling author Glenn Greenwald points out, the national party is making little effort to conceal which companies are financing the convention, instead placing their logos unabashedly on the bag that every delegate and member of the media will receive when they arrive at the conventions [Salon.com, July 20, 2008].

But the benefits of corporate sponsorship go well beyond prominent advertising on welcome bags. A quick look at the sponsorship packets that the host committees give to possible sponsors betrays the true purpose of corporate sponsorship - a guarantee that big-money contributors will have special access to elected officials attending the conventions. The fact that corporate donors have been so reluctant to disclose the exact amount of their contributions further suggests that their interest in sponsorship is far from benevolent.

The Denver host committee packet promises donors who give more than $500,000, "Platinum" and "Presidential" sponsors, access to premier Denver venues for corporate hospitality events and receptions. The Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) has reported that the original Minneapolis St. Paul host committee packet offered top sponsors a golfing outing with Republican leadership, in addition to a reception with local party officials and US Senator Norm Coleman.   

Though these perks were removed from the packet following a number of critical articles in local and national media, the fact remains that the primary benefit that host committees offer to corporate sponsors is exclusive access to decision makers. To ensure that ordinary voters have a voice at the conventions, Congress must act to close the conventions soft-money loophole.

Learn more about corporate sponsorship of the conventions and take action today!

Written by Zoe Bridges-Curry and Angela Canterbury.

"I look forward to the day, by 2008, when Americans can turn on their TVs and watch the Nokia Democratic Convention, or the AT&T Republican National Convention."

                                                        - Bradley Smith, former Republican member of the FEC

What happened to putting voters first?  Well, yesterday, our own Craig Holman threw down the gauntlet and told CQ [$] that campaign finance and ethics watchdogs will be out in force, keeping tabs on the events and making noise over rules violations.

Campaign finance laws like the Fair Elections Campaign Act (FECA) were created in part to end the undo influence of corporate donors.  Contradicting the spirit of these laws, political parties continue to use the national party conventions to secure millions of dollars in corporate contributions, funneling contributions through the supposedly nonpartisan host committees.  The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has even approved this maneuver, thereby allowing wealthy corporations privileged access to elected officials at the conventions.

For the political parties, the conventions are the perfect opportunity to circumvent existing restrictions on soft-money donations, because donors can make lavish contributions to the conventions’ host committees. A report recently released by the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI), estimated that approximately 80% of the estimated $112 million needed to hold the conventions will come from private donors, primarily large corporations.

As both the report and a quick visit to the DNC convention website make clear, in return for sizeable donations, host committees for both parties offer corporations and other big donors exclusive access to elected officials at the conventions.  The greater the donation, the greater the access to advertising opportunities and influential convention attendees. In his talking points for meeting with potential corporate donors, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota offered corporations the chance to “connect with influential government officials (Cabinet, President, next President)” [New York Times, June 7, 2008]. An added bonus for donors: corporate donations to the host committee are tax deductible, meaning that, ultimately, it is taxpayers who subsidize corporate privilege at the conventions.

The CFI report documents that “Presidential” donors who give $1 million to the DNC Convention receive VIP access to the Pepsi Center convention hall and all Host Committee-sponsored events, numerous advertising opportunities, and the opportunity to attend private events with Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, U.S. Senator Ken Salazar, and other party officials. As advertised in brochures given to potential donors, corporate donors to the GOP Convention receive similar perks for a $5 million donation.

To ensure that voters’ voices are not drowned out by big-money interests, it is crucial that Congress act to prevent unlimited soft-money donations to convention host committees and to ensure public financing for elections.

Take Action! Tell your members of Congress to comply with existing ethics laws at the conventions.

By David Arkush and Craig Holman. Originally published in Roll Call ($).

The presumptive presidential nominees, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), are exploiting a major loophole in the campaign finance law. Both Senators are setting up joint fundraising committees that allow the wealthy to donate $70,000 or more on behalf of their campaigns.

You might wonder how this squares with the $2,300 limit on contributions from individuals - contribution limits that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 sought to protect by banning large soft-money contributions.

Heres how McCain Victory 2008, one of the candidates new joint fundraising committees, is accepting $70,100 from donors: The first $2,300 is treated as a contribution to the McCain campaign. Then, $2,300 goes to McCains compliance fund. The next $28,500 is earmarked for the Republican National Committee. And the remainder - up to $37,000 - is split between the Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico and Wisconsin Republican parties.

McCain set up at least six joint fundraising committees. Obama announced on April 25 that he, too, will set up a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee.

This strategy flies in the face of the campaign finance reforms that both candidates advocate. First, it allows candidates to receive very large campaign contributions that directly benefit the candidate - contributions that can buy these donors special attention not afforded to average Americans. Second, it undermines the voluntary spending ceilings of the public financing program.

McCains fundraising strategy enables him to accept the $84.1 million public funding grant - and an identical spending ceiling - and to effectively exceed that spending ceiling by helping raise funds for unlimited Republican Party spending on his candidacy.

The practice of presidential campaigns raising money for their parties to supplement their own fundraising is not new. In 2004, both George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) set up joint fundraising committees that funneled money into their parties. Kerry raised about $41 million for the DNC, while Bush generated about $29 million for the RNC.

But McCain plans to put those numbers to shame. His campaign reportedly set a goal of raising $120 million through joint fundraising committees. Given Obamas astonishing fundraising success to date, theres little reason to suspect that his efforts will fall short of McCains.

Candidates cannot dictate party spending. But when a candidate hosts fundraisers for a party, it is expected that much of the proceeds will be used to promote the candidate. Its no coincidence that McCains joint fundraising effort focuses on state party committees in swing states.

Political parties are an essential component of a vigorous democracy. But they should not serve as simple conduits for the presidential candidates to break fundraising and spending records - or to ignore the spirit of campaign finance reforms that they championed.

Three responses to these joint fundraising schemes will help avoid a return to the pre-BCRA era of raising exorbitantly large contributions from wealthy special interests.

First, strengthen the rules that restrict coordination between candidates, parties and outside groups. If campaign advertisements by party committees or outside groups are done at the urging or direction of a candidate or the candidates agents - including campaign consultants who work for the candidate - the ads should be classified as coordinated activity. Under current law, the national parties may spend no more than $18 million in coordination with a presidential campaign. For outside groups, coordinated spending is counted as a contribution to the campaign, subject to the $2,300 contribution limit.

The coordination rules are currently being litigated. Proponents of BCRA are suing the Federal Election Commission over its extremely narrow definition of coordination. Current rules find no coordination if agents of the candidates and committees share campaign strategy more than 120 days before the election - a rule that permits so much coordination that campaigns hardly need any more coordination once the restricted period begins. This time frame must be expanded to cover the entire election period. Also, the FEC should adopt a rebuttable presumption that a candidate and party or committee are coordinated if they share common political consultants.

Second, the FEC must require parties to classify hybrid ads as either candidate expenditures or coordinated party expenditures. In 2004, Bush and the RNC began splitting the costs of ads promoting Bush and our leaders in Congress, with the party claiming that it was paying only for the generic reference to party leaders, not for the reference to Bush, and thus not count the cost against its coordinated spending limit. The Democrats soon followed suit. This practice allowed the RNC to finance more than $46 million in hybrid ads for the Bush-Cheney ticket despite the $16 million party spending ceiling in effect at the time. To date, the FEC has gridlocked on whether to ban this practice.

Finally, the presidential public financing system must be restored. Nearly all presidential campaigns from 1976 to 2000 were financed largely with public funds, leveling the playing field between candidates and placing reasonable caps on overall spending. That system has all but collapsed today, with most major candidates opting to chase unlimited private financing of their campaigns. The spending ceilings need be raised and more public funds put into the system. Equally important, the public financing system must provide participating candidates fair fight funds - additional public money to match excessive spending by opponents who benefit from large independent expenditures by parties and other outside groups.