From Smoke-filled Rooms to Glitzy Dinners

In the wake of Watergate and the downfall of the Nixon Presidency, helped in part by a 27-year-old lawyer who was one of the members of the Majority Counsel, laws were passed for a Presidential Matching Fund and limits to campaign contributions in an effort to limit the power of wealthy powerbrokers and make it easier for unknown candidates to get a hearing at the Presidential level. The deal was simple: campaigns contributions were capped at $1000 for the primary and general election seasons. For Presidential elections, a candidate would receive matching funds for contributions of up to $250 in exchange for hard caps on spending and foregoing campaign contributions in the general elections, which would be equal for the two major parties, and distributed to third-party candidates if their party received at least 5% of the popular vote the preceeding general election on a sliding scale, with full parity at 25%. However, according to this Washington Post article (free registration required), that young lawyer, who is now the junior Senator from New York, has dealt what may very well be the final crippling blow to the Presidential Matching Fund, by refusing any and all federal funds for her Presidential campaign, in the hopes that she can raise more money than the strict limits of the Presidential Matching Fund allow.

Of course, one could very easily point to charges of hypocrisy for Senator Hillary Clinton, but Mr. Campaign Finance Reform himself, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), is also preparing to forego the Presidential Matching Fund for the primary, but the jury is still out for the general election, and nearly every top-tiered candidate is expected to forego the $50 million cap in the primary season. However, the danger of a ripple effect is obvious, as stated by the article:

Clinton's decision will put pressure on other candidates in both parties to follow suit, and if they do, the 2008 campaign will complete what has been the rapid disintegration of a system designed to rein in unlimited spending in presidential campaigns.

One effect is to put lesser-known candidates at a further disadvantage in competing with rivals who have the capacity to raise huge amounts of money.

"It's going to be a tremendous test of whether this system survives," Robert Lenhard, chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said of the pressure building on the existing system. Michael Toner, his predecessor, was less restrained. This election, he predicted, will be "basically the death" of public financing.

Sadly, this trend is nothing new. In the lead-up to the 2000 election, then-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) realized that it was possible to exceed the then-$45 million cap with the bundling of $1000 donations and he would be able to avoid the strict state-by-state caps imposed by the Presidential Matching Fund. Other candidates cried foul, but lost the nomination. However, both then-Governor Bush and then-Vice President Al Gore accepted the funds for the general election. In 2004, bolstered by McCain-Feingold's increase of the donation cap to $2000 with adjustments made every two years by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), President Bush repeated his 2004 strategy, but this time he was joined by former Governor Howard Dean (D-VT) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in foregoing Presidential Matching Funds for the primary season, with both major party nominees shattering George W. Bush's 2000 fundraising record. However, with Senator Clinton announcing her intention to forego all public financing, the system may have reached its breaking point, with pressure ratcheting up on the Republican nominee to forego the funds as well if Senator Clinton wins the nomination.

This will be nothing short of a disaster, with the very real possibility of a Presidential campaign raising and spending over $1 billion in the not-too-distant future if this process continues unabated. However, we can and must stop this process now and prevent the Presidential Matching Fund from becoming a ghetto for less-financed candidates. Maine and Arizona show us how this can be done with their Clean Campaign Laws. In exchange for foregoing all private and personal fundraising, a candidate agrees to raise a fixed number of $5 contributions to be contributed to the Clean Campaign Fund. When that number is received, the candidate receives a check for a fixed amount, with certain stricter enforcement of disclosure laws for a candidate who opts out of public funds. For example, if a candidate's contributions exceeds the amount given to Clean Campaign candidates, that candidate is required to report all contributions within 24 hours, and every candidate who opted in and qualifies receives a matching contribution. In the 2002 Arizona gubernatorial race, Janet Napolitano (D) qualified and her opponent raised far beyond the public funds, giving her an equal amount of millions. Republicans complained, but to no avail as it was determined that no one has a Constiutional right to outspend his or her opponent by a 5:1 ratio, and Napolitano won. In the 2006 Maine gubernatorial election, Governor John Balducci (D) opted out of the Clean Campaign Fund, but didn't raise over $404,000 for fear of the matching funds that his opponents would have received.

If this model is followed, will have a situation where more and more candidates opt in to the system, rather than our current system where more candidates opt out every cycle. I would be willing to wager that most Presidential candidates would gladly forego the endless campaign fundraisers if all they had to do was receive, say 200,000 $5 donations and be guaranteed equal funding to every candidate in the field. Not only that, but that would make candidates spend more time talking to everyday people instead of those who can write $2300 checks. By doing so, we will no longer have a situation where the interests of the wealthy few outweigh the needs and interests of the people, and most candidates will avoid making personal attacks and we will have an election that hinges on the issues rather than personalities and endless discussions of the horserace.

Unfortunately, there are some who are well-intentioned who may very well take us down the same road as the current Presidential Matching Fund here in West Virginia. A coalition met yesterday for Public Financing Day at the State Legislature, but their plan as currently proposed has huge flaws. For example, all donations must be received from inside the district. This may not seem like a difficult hurdle to clear, but with many districts being single-member House of Delegates districts that are part of one county, and a lot of the political activists in different portions of the county, it would be very difficult for a candidate to receive the 100 donations needed to qualify for the funds. Considering that candidates who opt out can raise money from anywhere in the US, I see no reason why Clean Campaign candidates shouldn't be allowed to receive the contributions statewide. (The proposal increases the number of required contributions by 25 for each member in the Delegate District.) Then, there is the more serious problem, for a single-member district, the fund is $7500, with matching funds for opponent's spending up to triple the initial amount. In other words, if someone can raise over $22,500, they will be able to do so to the detriment of their Clean Campaign funded opponent. (The initial funds increases by $2500 per member in the district, with the cap increasing by $7500.) If we make those simple changes to the proposal, we can have a system that makes local elections fairer and will allow more people a chance to get involved in the political process. If this bill goes through unamended, we will have the very real danger of repeating the same mistakes of the Presidential Matching Fund.

"Keep fighting for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce."-- Molly Ivins (1944-2007). This post is dedicated to her memory.


Update: Here is the proposed law . -Amos

Update: Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards have also decided to forego public financing for the primary and general elections. Information can be found here. -Albert

Domestic tensions in Iran

So if there is any good news to come out of Iran these days for the United States government, this might be it:

Iran's beleaguered president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is facing a powerful challenge from his fiercest political rival for control of the country's nuclear and economic policies.

Hashemi Rafsanjani, a pragmatic conservative defeated by Mr Ahmadinejad in the 2005 presidential election, believes Iran may have to yield to western demands to suspend uranium enrichment to save the country's Islamic system from collapse.

He is trying to persuade the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in state matters, that further negotiations are essential to avoid a potentially disastrous conflict with the US or Israel.

It seems really hard for most Americans to understand that leaders of other countries have to bow to domestic influences, especially when we want to do something our way. (We have almost forgotten what this must be like in our own country, seeing as Bush has been the closest thing to a monarch we have ever had...) But in Iran, no matter how often our right-wing opponents want to claim otherwise, Iranian President Ahmadinejad still must contend with the political forces within his country which could slow confrontation on his end (though it appears that Bush is definitely pushing it in December with his party losing greatly in local elections, many analysts consider this a rebuke to Ahmedinejad's heavy focus on Sabre-rattling rather than economics:

The vote is being seen as a sign of public discontent with Ahmadinejad's constant fights with the West, which have led Iran closer to UN sanctions. His anti-Israel rhetoric and unbending stand on the nuclear programme are believed to have divided Iranians who voted him into power in 2005.

Some conservatives feel Ahmadinejad has spent too much time confronting the US and its allies and failed to deal with Iran's struggling economy. The voting also represented a partial comeback for reformists, who favour closer ties with the West and further loosening of social and political restrictions under the Islamic government. Leading reformist Saeed Shariati said the results of the election was a "big no" to Ahmadinejad and his allies.

In the meantime, the election also installed a major rival within the Council of Experts (which selects the Ayatullah.) Rafsanjani is the main candidate who lost in '05 to Ahmedinejad and also his biggest rival.

Who's this Rafsnajani, and how is he using his newfound position to undermine Ahmedinejad?

Hashemi Rafsanjani, a pragmatic conservative defeated by Mr Ahmadinejad in the 2005 presidential election, believes Iran may have to yield to western demands to suspend uranium enrichment to save the country's Islamic system from collapse.

He is trying to persuade the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in state matters, that further negotiations are essential to avoid a potentially disastrous conflict with the US or Israel.

Mr Rafsanjani, a former president and pillar of Iran's political establishment, disagrees and is understood to have formed a committee overseeing the nuclear negotiations. The committee will assess whether the country's international standing has been damaged by Mr Ahmadinejad's radical statements.

What does he have to say for himself?

"Before the sanctions, Rafsanjani hoped Iran could obtain its enrichment objectives through mutual understanding with the west. But now he thinks we have reached a dangerous point and that a step should be taken backwards in the hope that two forward can be taken later,"

Some of our more unenlightened friends might find it interesting to think that even in Iran, some are seeking moderation.

Of course, in Iran, one must wonder if U.S. intimidation is getting to them... In any case it is more likely that some people would rather see something resolved peacefully for once. Problem is America has an ass for a President who will not talk to Iran... at all.

It is certainly interesting and a good thing that we see that both leaders, eager for conflict, quick to confrontation, and both seen by almost every international observer as seeking to increase international tensions rather than seeking to decrease them, both find themselves facing forms of public discontent. The only problem is that both rebukes, in the U.S. and in Iran will most likely have little signifcance in policy changes during the next two years.

Update: Check out this Washington Post Article going over Iran's increasing influence in the region. It places the Bush Administration's biggest mistakes in bold fucking print. It really is no surprise that with mistake of the U.S. invasion of a rival of Iran's and the subsequent atrocities, the continuation of violence against normal Palestinians, and Israel's incursion into Lebanon, that America and Israel has only made Iran's ascent unavoidable. For the average person in the Middle East this is so many attacks on your people and your culture... There is only so much you are willing to take. The region will look for a leader to stand up to the U.S., it allies and Status Quo. It is quite obvious who seeks this role. It is not a role without precedent in the region.