“…it’s clear that the Court is simultaneously making it easier to buy an election and harder to vote in an election.”— Liz Kennedy, counsel at Demos, on the Supreme Court’s decision this weekend to allow Texas’s discriminatory voter ID law to go into effect. (Demos)
“The influence of money in politics was long treated as a side issue during the campaign season. But this year, in at least a half-dozen Senate races, large contributions to and big spending by independent super PACs and nonprofits have featured as key topics in candidate debates.”
Every Voice’s David Donnelly on why this might be: “It’s an issue that appeals to conservatives as well as to progressives. It’s smart politics not just to blast money in politics but to say what you’re for.”
But do the donors hand their preferred candidates a rose?
"As the sun set over Central Park on Monday night, a parade of black town cars arrived at 834 Fifth Avenue, depositing well-heeled Republican donors in front of the Upper East Side apartment of Jets owner Woody Johnson.
"A fleet of Chevy Suburbans, equipped with flashing lights and crewed by tense suit-and-earpiece-clad state troopers, stood guard at 64th Street to protect some People Who Would Be President. From 6pm to 6:30, a passel of 2016 hopefuls promenaded into the building to attend the event—a major fundraiser for the Republican National Committee.”
“The old man is raising 100 grand a day. I’m serious. Ask any lobbyist of anyone in Washington if they’ve gotten a call from Pat Roberts.”— A Republican source on Sen. Pat Roberts’ relying on Washington lobbyists to fund his campaign in the home stretch. (The Hill)
“I think the notion that we have all the democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is supposed to be.”—Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an interview with The New Republic, on the Citizens United v. FEC decision.
“It is a very rare exception where there is a quid pro quo – a donation for an action. But when you are spending a lot of time with people who believe a certain set of things, it’s hard not to be influenced by that viewpoint.”— Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), on the systemic corruption of our big money political system. (Roll Call)
"Senators who have vocalized their opposition to net neutrality are taking in, on average, 40 percent more campaign cash from the broadband-delivery industry than those who support it, according to an analysis of campaign data."
“The fact is, we all should be working to overturn Citizens United and reduce the role of money in politics. And I guarantee you this: You reduce the role of money in politics, increase the level of civility — you will elect more women, more young people, more minorities, more LGBT community people to the Congress of the United States. It’s very important.”— House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, on Late Night with Seth Meyers Monday night.
“We bought the son of a bitch, but he wouldn’t stay bought.”— Steel baron Henry Clay Frick, years after the 1904 election of President Teddy Roosevelt, on he and his colleagues giving large sums to the president’s campaign and not being happy with the results. The quote was mentioned in the new PBS documentary, The Roosevelts.
A lot has already been written about last night’s primary results in the New Hampshire Senate race. Mayday PAC, founded by Harvard Professor Larry Lessig, invested heavily to support Jim Rubens and oppose Scott Brown, and when the dust settled, Brown had a relatively convincing win. That, some cynics claim, means an electoral strategy on money-in-politics in general is ineffective.
To reach this conclusion would be: A) wrong, B) a misread of what happened in NH, C) to discount lessons that are important to learn in this or any loss, or D) all of the above.
The right answer? D, of course.
First things first. Mayday was able to spend heavily in this race because of the vision of their founder and their amazing supporters. That shouldn’t get lost in the sauce of dissecting election results. Mayday is already succeeding at generating new interest, press attention, and volunteer excitement. Just because that hasn’t yet translated into electoral success, we shouldn’t criticize what they’ve already established.
In just 30 days in New Hampshire, they did tremendous work generating major press attention, securing the endorsement of a former U.S. Senator in Gordon Humphrey, and expanded money-in-politics activism in the Granite State.
Our experience inserting the issue of money in politics into elections dates back to the 2002 election cycle, but the most applicable experiences come from last cycle. In 2012, I co-founded and co-directed Friends of Democracy (FOD), the first super PAC to embrace the irony, as Mayday now does. FOD set out to defeat candidates who opposed legislation to reduce the influence of super PACs and wealthy donors in politics. We had extraordinary success in helping to elect seven of the eight candidates we chose to support.
Unlike Mayday, we did not set out to make money-in-politics the singular issue in these races. We set out to win highly competitive House races by making where a candidate stood on the issue and a pay-to-play narrative a determinant one for late-deciding persuadable voters who would provide the margin of victory. In six of the seven winning races we engaged in, the margin of victory was smaller than the 18,000 to 25,000 swing voters we targeted with our direct mail, phone, and web advertising campaigns.
Mayday’s model is different. For example, in New Hampshire, they sought to elect a U.S. Senate candidate in a GOP primary solely based on where he stands on addressing money in politics. And they sought to make the issue the only defining one of the race. The results from polling posted on Lessig’s tumblr shows tremendous progress in striving towards these goals, but observers, including Lessig himself, rightly raise the question whether the gap in this race was too much for too short a time. Regardless, there are significant lessons for us all to consider from the polling he’s posted. That reform voters were Rubens’ best constituency speaks to Mayday’s effectiveness in persuading voters to vote for a candidate because of his position on reform. Rubens gained substantially in the race, from nine points to 24 on Election Day.
It also shouldn’t be discounted that, looking to 2016, we know that a significant number of GOP primary voters are moveable on this issue. In a crowded primary, that could make a difference. (But that presupposes our model of how to target races, not Lessig’s.)
The macro-lesson is this: targeting really matters, both in the races selected and the voters with whom a PAC communicates. These lessons can be easily applied to races going forward for Mayday. I’m confident that Lessig and his team will do so.
For our part, Every Voice Action will be focused on re-electing five of the champions Friends of Democracy elected in 2012. All of them are in competitive elections where money-in-politics messaging, if we’re effective, can once again provide a margin of victory. We will also expand the state work we began in New York last cycle to additional districts in the Empire State and at least two other states. And we will mount a significant campaign to place boots on the ground to defeat Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. Additional races are on our radar screen, as well, including some in which we might partner with Mayday.
Mayday started out with a hard task in a GOP primary in New Hampshire with a long-shot candidate. It will be the hardest task they take on this cycle. The results last night in New Hampshire are instructive, NOT determinative, for future strategic decisions. As I can attest having done electoral work over the past eight cycles, they will succeed in some races and not in others. While we have slightly different strategies, Mayday is in the arena and is a force for building the political power necessary to win serious policy changes.
Businessman and Georgia Senate candidate David Perdue is heading to Washington, D.C. next week for a series of six fundraisers, including three “themed,” events, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The “themes” include:
An "Oil and Gas Event" On Monday ($2,500 to attend)
A "Financial ServicesReception" Tuesday morning ($1,000 to attend)
A “Utilities Dinner,” sponsored by energy industry PACs, on Tuesday evening ($1,000) to attend.
He’s also attending three additional events: at a lobbying firm, at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and at a Capitol Hill town house.
Former Gov. Bob McDonnell guilty on 11 corruption accounts
In Virginia today, “A federal jury Thursday found former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, guilty of public corruption — sending a message that they believed the couple sold the office once occupied by Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson to a free spending Richmond businessman for golf outings, lavish vacations and $120,000 in sweetheart loans.” (Washington Post)
Every Voice President and CEO David Donnelly released the following statement:
"A jury of everyday Virginians returned guilty verdicts against Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife today, but the trial also exposed how our broader campaign finance system breeds corruption. The whole system is guilty of putting a privileged few above average voters, and Virginia lawmakers and Governor Terry McAuliffe ought to get to work to bring some sanity back to the financing of Virginia politics."
“How wrong can this be? Basically what is happening here is that people work in Washington, and man, they hit that revolving door with a speed that would blind you.”— Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on the announcement this week that former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) would join the board and staff of an investment bank. (Business Insider)
“Without citizens taking on an active role in our country, we despair over what’s happening in Washington; the dysfunction of the legislature; the tribal problems that people feel toward one another. We despair over money-in-politics, which I do think is the poison in the system. If I were younger, that’s what I’d be doing – leading a constitutional amendment to get money out of the system. It’s all up to us – we can’t wait for somebody else to do it.”—
- Renowned author and presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin on the need to address the “poison” of money in politics.
“Let them know that you can accept corporate contributions and it is not reported.”— A top aide to Gov. Scott Walker, suggesting a way to get around disclosing big corporate donations to boost the governor’s recall election fight. (NYT)
“The key staff from Obama for America are translating their political success into personal economic success. If anything this points to the need for the rest of us to build a movement that gets big money out of politics so the change we voted for in 2008 can become real.”— Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohen in this story on former top Obama advisers cashing out with questionable jobs.