[EL] NYT/Secret GOP Records Reveal Corporate Donors Paying for Access to Governors

[Craig Holman]

Colleagues:
 
Upon reading the RGA documents –which break their corporate donors down into special classes of contributorsbased on donation amount (Statesmen, $250,000+; Cabinet, $100,000+; Board, $50,000+; Council, $25,000+), and then detail the rising scale ofaccess to public officials each class of donors receives – brings to mind theMcConnell v. FEC decision, in which a more reasoned Supreme Court upheld BCRA’sban on corporate soft money contributions precisely to prevent such buying ofaccess.
 
From the McConnell decision:
 
Many of the "deeply disturbing examples" of corruption cited by this Court in Buckley, 424 U. S.,at 27, to justify FECA'scontribution limits were not episodesof vote buying, but evidence that various corporate interests had given substantial donations to gain accessto high-level governmentofficials. See Buckley,519 F. 2d, at 821, 839-840, n. 36; nn. 5-6,supra. Even if thataccess did notsecure actual influence, it certainly gavethe "appearance of such influence." Colorado II, supra, at 441; see also 519 F. 2d, at 838.
The recordin the present case is replete with similar examples of national partycommittees peddling accessto federal candidates and officeholders in exchange for large soft-money donations. See 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 492-506(Kollar-Kotelly, J.). As   one formerSenator put it:
" 'Special interests who give large amountsof soft money to political partiesdo in fact achieve theirobjectives. They do get specialaccess. Sitting Senatorsand House Membershave limited amountsof time, but they make time availablein their schedulesto meet withrepresentatives of business and unionsand wealthy individuals who gave largesums to theirpar- ties. Theseare not idle chit-chats about the philosophy of democracy. . . . Senators are pressed by their benefactors to introduce legislation, to amend legislation, to block legislation, and to vote on legislation in a certain way.'" Id., at 496 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (quoting declaration of former Sen.Warren Rudman if7(hereinafter Rudman Decl.),App. 742); 251 F. Supp.2d, at 858 (Leon,J.) (same).
So pervasive is this practice that the six national party committees actually furnish theirown menus of opportunities for access to would-be soft-money donors, withincreased prices reflectingan increased level of access. For example, the DCCC offers a range of donor options, starting with the $10,000-per-year Business Forum program,and going up to the $100,000-per-year National Finance Board program. The latter entitlesthe donor to bimonthly conference calls with the Democratic House leadership and chairof the DCCC,complimentary invitations to all DCCCfundraising events, two private dinners with the Democratic Houseleadership and rankingmembers, and tworetreats with the Democratic Houseleader and DCCCchair in Telluride, Colorado, and Hyannisport, Massachusetts. Id., at 504-505 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.); see also id., at 506 (describing recordsindicating that DNC offered meetings with President in return for large donations); id., at 502-503 (describing RNC's various donor programs); id., at 503-504(same for NRSC);id., at 500- 503(same for DSCC);id., at 504 (same for NRCC). Similarly, "the RNC's donor programs offer greater access to federaloffice holders as the donationsgrow larger, with thehighest level and most personalaccess offered to thelargest soft money donors." Id., at 500-503(finding, further, that the RNC holdsout the prospect of access to officeholders to attract soft-money donations and encourages officeholders to meet withlarge soft-money donors);accordingly,  id., at 860-861 (Leon,J.).



Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
T-(202) 454-5182
C-(202) 905-7413
F-(202) 547-7392
Holman at aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140925/6bb98212/attachment.html>