Features » July 31, 2006

Capital Crimes (cont’d)

Page 2 of 2« Previous

The incentive of earning such credit worked extremely well: Bush’s Pioneers and Rangers collected at least 30 percent of the $276 million raised for the 2004 campaign. In exchange, they were given access to Pioneer-only events, designated as delegates to the presidential conventions and, for about one-fifth of them, garnered presidential appointments to everything from advisory boards to cabinet-level positions.

However, the public nature of the program is unlikely to be duplicated, especially by members of Congress wary of the reporting enabled by revealing their funders. In fact, the list of Bush’s Pioneers and Rangers might never have been made public at all. It was still a secret in 1999 when a watchdog group called Texans for Public Justice began pushing a story about a sophisticated contribution tracking system. On a slow news day in Texas, one of the reporters covering the still-unpolished presidential candidate caught Bush unaware and got him to agree to release the details.

“It’s one of those accidents of history,” says Andrew Wheat, research director for the group. “If Bush hadn’t been caught unprepared for the questions, we probably wouldn’t know the tremendous role these fundraisers played in the campaign.”

More scandals around the corner?

By the end of Bush’s second term we will likely see more Pioneers and Rangers behind bars. Federal prosecutors continue to investigate how far the Abramoff and Cunningham lobbying scandals extend. Tom DeLay’s trial for the alleged illegal use of corporate campaign contributions in the 2002 Texas elections is proceeding. One of the funding vehicles allegedly used in that scheme, Texans for a Republican Majority, was headed by Pioneer-lobbyist Bill Ceverha, and it received contributions from Brent Wilkes, now under investigation.

The Pioneer with the most to worry about, however, may be Ralph Reed. Reed, a Pioneer in 2000 and a Ranger in 2004, is running for lieutenant governor in Georgia. In late June, a Senate investigative report on the Abramoff scandal noted that he accepted more than $5 million from Indian tribes that operate casinos. According to the report, Reed used his position as head of the Christian Coalition to generate conservative opposition to the proposed gambling operations of rival tribes, but only accepted the money after it was laundered through a series of intermediary corporations. In fact, when Abramoff got his first lobbying job in 1995, the press release issued by his new employer touted his ties to the Christian Coalition and Reed, whom he first met during their days in the College Republicans. Reed has not been accused of a crime, but the report recommended a further investigation of the procedures used to obscure the source of the payments. One of the tribes on the losing end of that scheme recently named him and Abramoff in a lawsuit for causing its casino to be shuttered.

Systematic problems, systematic solutions

The only way to eliminate the incentive for less than scrupulous individuals to corrupt the political system is the full public financing of elections, according to Public Citizen’s Craig Holman. “Because the ‘bundling’ of other people’s campaign contributions is now the state of the art of campaign financing, it should at the very least be disclosed if not outlawed altogether. There is no constitutional right to parlay other people’s money into your own power and access,” Holman says. “Of course, if you’re going to cut off such a large avenue of funding for campaigns you have to replace it with something, and the best solution is public financing.”

In fact, the current scandals appear to be fueling public support for just that. Under public financing, known as “clean elections,” candidates qualify for public funding through their party’s past performance, or by collecting signatures or a set number of small contributions, usually five dollars. Once qualified, candidates agree to accept no private contributions and to abide by strict spending limits. A recent poll by the reform group Public Campaign shows that 74 percent of the public supports full, voluntary public financing for federal elections. And another poll by the Sunlight Foundation found that a similar majority (76 percent) supports the full disclosure of all money raised for candidates by lobbyists. [Full disclosure: The Sunlight Foundation is a funder of my employer, Congresspedia.]

Despite the multiple indictments and convictions of bundlers, members of Congress and lobbyists, substantive reforms appear to be all but dead in Congress. Simply put, candidates need the money raised by surrogate fundraisers more than they need to be seen as reformers. Consider, for example, that convicted New Hampshire phonejammer Chuck McGee is now out of prison and holding a “GOP Campaign School” for Republican activists in New Hampshire. In Illinois, Republican gubernatorial nominee Judy Barr Topinka is not heeding the entreaties of some of her former primary opponents to disown the publicly-tainted Robert Kjellander (and the money he brings to her campaign) in order to win their endorsement.

But perhaps the saddest example is that even a reformer like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will sacrifice his principles in order to tap into an effective fundraiser’s network. In the 2000 presidential primary, McCain was the target of attack ads by a secretive group called Republicans for Clean Air. The group was basically a front for Texas millionaire brothers and Bush supporters Sam and Charles Wyly, the latter a 2000 Pioneer who pumped more than $2.5 million into the group. McCain was incensed, calling them “Wyly coyotes” and Bush’s “sleazy Texas buddies” who “ought to be ashamed.” “Tell them to keep their dirty money in the state of Texas,” he said. He accused Bush of coordinating with the Wylys and demanded a Federal Elections Commission investigation into the ads.

This May, however, McCain apparently forgave and forgot his strong words when he accepted $20,000 in contributions from the brothers to his Straight Talk America fund, which McCain will likely use to finance his nascent presidential campaign. McCain even invited the brothers to co-host a Dallas fundraiser for him. It was only after McCain staffers realized that the brothers are under investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney, the IRS and the SEC for tax evasion that his conscience kicked in, and he retuned the checks and disinvited them from the fundraiser.

A spokesman for the brothers said they understood the decision. Sometimes the price of a golden Rolodex is just too high.

Read more about the major players

Conor Kenny is the editor of Congresspedia.org, a collaborative online citizen's encyclopedia on Congress. He is also a former money in politics investigative researcher for Public Citizen.

More information about Conor Kenny

  • Reader Comments

    The real controlers of money coming and going can be found by recognizing symbols in the ‘logos’ of huge corporations pulling the purse strings of not only the US but globally, as well.

    Whenever you see a triangle or an owl in them you can bet there are strings to the ‘illuminati’, those in power because of their membership in Yale’s ‘skull & bones’ secret society.

    Check out this powerful video at You Tube on the logos of those powerful coporations that actually finance and hence run the government.
    “Secret Combination More Logos” at:
    http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=etYwtFb2Zyo&NR;
    Peace!
    neilemac

    Posted by neilemac on Aug 1, 2006 at 9:46 AM

    I genuinely liked reading through your post!. Quality material. I might advise you to come up with blogposts even more often. By doing this, having this kind of a worthy website I think you will probably rank higher in the search engines
    home insurance quotes
    long term care insurance

    Posted by Lalex on Apr 13, 2010 at 3:35 AM

    Over the past half-century or more, local governments have used eminent domain to promote local 1z0-053 economic development, creating more jobs and generating needed revenue. While everyone agrees that government can’t arbitrarily transfer one owner’s 350-050 property to another owner, the controversy arises over what kind of public benefits, if any, can justify such a transfer. From both left and right, critics have accused government of abusing testking 640-802 its power of eminent domain by taking homes and small businesses from the less affluent or less powerful and transferring them to big corporations—much as Detroit did in 1980 when it razed the working-class Poletown neighborhood and displaced more than itil v3 certification 3,400 people to clear land for a new General Motors factory. On the other hand, it’s rare when eminent domain is even proposed to take over, say, a factory being shut down by a corporation and turn it over to community-worker ownership.

    Posted by cris on Apr 14, 2010 at 9:20 PM

    If I were you, I would not refer too much to what Mr Bush said.. that man knows little about the topics he is so eloquent about!
    msd 250

    Posted by Ann Moss on Jun 15, 2010 at 8:12 AM
  • Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account