<x-charset Windows-874>Michael,
Encouraging small donations was not an explicit objective of the law
but a welcome consequence. The objective was to take politicians out of
the business of extorting unlimited contributions from corporations,
unions, and wealthy invidividuals. With these large donations closed
off, party leaders have naturally increased their investment in
small-donor fundraising. The incentive to do so is stronger with BCRA
than without it. Of course, the effort and its success was facilitated
by the broader political context of the 2004 elections (intense partisan
sentiments) and the lead of Howard Dean. What has happened is perfectly
rational and understandable.
As far as partisan advantage is concerned, let's wait to view the whole
election cycle in its totality. I suspect that counting all resources
— candidates, parties, and groups — and examining receipts and
expenditures will reveal more parity than partisan advantage.
Tom Mann
Michael Bailey <baileyma@georgetown.edu> 05/21/04 11:24AM >>>
My point is that the parties could have made this change themselves.
At
least, the overwhelming majorities in the Democratic caucus that
supported BCRA could have mandated the DSCC and DCCC to turn to small
donors w/o a law.
The idea that party members in Congress had to pass a law to change
their own party committees' behavior strikes me as odd.
Trevor Potter wrote:
I believe the answer to Michael Bailey's question about why the
Democrats did not emphasize small donor fundraising from individuals
prior to BCRA is that the incentives ran the other way-it was much
easier to raise money from a (relative) handful of known major
doners-wealthy individuals, large corporations with business interests
regulated by the federal government, and unions-in $100,000 and up
contributions. Only when those sources were removed was the Democratic
Party forced to turn to the harder task of building a small donor base.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Bailey [mailto:baileyma@georgetown.edu]
Sent: Fri May 21 02:00:26 2004
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: news of the day 5/20/04
A couple of comments on the Corrado piece:
- The increase in small money donors is often highlighted as an
achievement of BCRA. What prevented the parties and/or individual
canddiates from targeting small contributors before BCRA? Nothing in
the law. There may have been cultural or organizational issues in
the
parties, but these issues could have been overcome by lobbying the
parties to change their fundraising tactics, rather than creating
BCRA
and its attendant compexities. For the Democrats, at least, it seems
that the congressional caucus should have been more than willing the
support changes in party fundraising, in light of their support of
BCRA.
- Corrado reports that the Democrats are down $12 million relative to
2000 and the Republicans are up $62 million relative to 2000. As
Corrado points out, some portion of this net drop of $74 million for
Democrats is attributable to BCRA and was predictable in light of
Republicans' hard money advantages. In light of developments in
corporate tax policy, energy policy and other areas, it seems clear
the
Republicans are friendly to corporations in many areas. Hence, to
what
extent should we question the wisdom of trying the reduce the
influence
of corporations on policy by predictably advantaging the party more
supportive of corporate-favored policies?
--
Michael Bailey
Associate Professor
Department of Government
Georgetown University
ICC, Suite 681
Washington, DC 20057
(202) 687-6021
baileyma@georgetown.edu
http://www.georgetown.edu/bailey/
Thomas Mann wrote:
Bob,
Sorry that you didn't engage any of the points Corrado (not
Ornstein)
and I made in this morning's Roll Call. A few points about your
defense
of Broder.
Bush opted out of public financing before BCRA. He would have done
so
again with it. Fortunately for Democrats, Kerry followed suite.
Anything else would be irrational, not because of BCRA, but because
the
presidential public financing program is hopelessly out of date and
in
need of major repair. BCRA supporters correctly calculated that
reform
had to be deferred.
I see a big difference between between elected and party officials
soliciting unlimited contributions from corporate and union
treasuries
and wealthy individuals, on the one hand, and presidential campaigns
enlisting fundraisers/bundlers. The latter is a longstanding
practice
and fully anticipated by BCRA's authors.
BCRA was not designed to reduce the amount of money in campaigns.
Many
of us involved in the effort believe more money is needed. The
problem
is with how it is raised and distributed. Hyperbolic floor
statements
by some supporters cannot undue this reality.
The activities of outside groups were fully anticipated by BCRA
architects, Remember, the focus was on party soft money and
electioneering communications (60/30 day windows). The latter
constraints remain in effect, even for your 527 clients. We kept
saying
the bill was modest; critics never accepted that.
Bottom line: the parties and candidates, working entirely with hard
money, are dwarfing the soft-money efforts of the new 527s. For the
relevant numbers, see
http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/20040519corrado.htm It's not even
close. BCRA is alive and well.
Tom Mann
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
>from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this
communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.