Outlook: Obama and the End of Fundraising Limits

[WhiskeyGirl]

Outlook: Obama and the End of Fundraising Limits

Democratic Campaigns Actions Show Campaign Finance Reform Is a Partisan Tool, Not Good Policy
 
Bradley A. Smith
Former Chairman, Federal Election Commission; Chairman, Center for Competitive Politics

Monday, October 27, 2008; 2:00 PM

"The most extraordinary development in this year's election may well be the Obama fundraising juggernaut. First, the Illinois senator raised and spent record amounts in winning the Democratic nomination. Then, unlike Sen. John McCain, he decided not to take a taxpayer subsidy to run his general election campaign. ... That's fine by me. Obama's epic fundraising should put to rest all the shibboleths about campaign finance reform -- that it is needed to prevent corruption, that it equalizes the playing field, or that tax subsidies are needed to prevent corruption."

Former FEC chairman and current Center for Competitive Politics chairman Bradley A. Smith was online Monday, Oct. 27 at 2 p.m. ET to discuss his article on what Obama's astounding donation totals mean for the future of money in politics.

from the transcript -

Bel Air, Md.: The huge amount of money raised in this election by Obama spells the death of campaign finance reform. Looks like that several people donated more than the whatever limit it is by using fictitious names and addresses and contributing several under-$200 donations. Names like Mickey Mouse and Will B. Good may be flagged easily, but if they were a step more clever and used innocuous names, they would not be flagged. Contrary to your assessment, this indeed is corrupting the process.

Bradley A. Smith: Well, not really. These contributions are made by credit card. The campaign therefore has a way to track the real donors, and a legal obligation to report the sources accurately or refund the money. I'm comfortable that will happen. You might say the process is working.

Anniston, Ala.: It is disturbing that Obama has more than $250 million in credit card contributions of $200 or less, where the sources have not been made public. I understand that by law this is not required, but what happens if, after he is elected president, we learn that these contributions came from foreign countries that are our enemies or that support terrorism?

Bradley A. Smith: I presume a tremendous political backlash, massive Republican gains in 2010, and possibly even impeachment before then.

Wilmington, N.C.:"Former FEC chairman." Given your obvious political leanings, I must say I find that very disturbing. Is that a partisan political post? Should it be?

Bradley A. Smith: The FEC has six commissioners, with no more than 3 from any one political party. Four votes are needed for most action. So one party can't dictate outcomes. I found that the Commission worked pretty well.

But you've really hit the nail on the head - how can you maintain over time a truly unbiased political police? That's why I generally would deregulate the system, or at least start in that direction. We need separation of campaigns and state, you might say.

Bradley A. Smith: Well, thanks, it has been fun. Here are a few links for campaign finance junkies:

www.opensecrets.org has lots of info on candidate fundraising. I don't agree with their policy prescriptions, but as a source of info, it's good.

www.fec.gov is the Federal Election Commission site. There you can view the raw data in reports and the like.

www.campaignfreedom.org is the Center for Competitive Politics, which offers a more deregulatory view of campaign finance. I founded the Center in 2005.

www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com is the site of election attorney Bob Bauer, General Counsel to the Obama campaign. Bob always has an interesting take on election and campaign finance issues.

read the whole here -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/10/24/DI2008102402766.html

There is some interesting stuff out there.