5 Unseemly Examples of Access, Assistance & Favors for Campaign Contributors

With the anniversary of Citizens United coming up, I wanted to share some of the more interesting, unusual, or egregious examples of contributions buying access, assistance or favors that I’ve come across.  These examples demonstrate the corruption, poor policy decisions, and erosion of confidence in our elected officials that accompanies big spending in politics.  In all of these stories, even if nothing nefarious is going on by the elected official, it looks pretty bad and it would be better to avoid the appearance of corruption altogether.

Hopefully these will be useful to convince undecideds, inspire someone to join one of the many Citizens United protests on Wednesday or just be good conversational fodder.

I’ve left out any reference to name or party in the hope that everyone will evaluate the example without pre-judging or partisanship.

I’m cross-posting this at my blog, Red State and DailyKos.

Jury: State Senator Interfered in Child Abuse Investigation, Custody Hearing to Help Contributor

In a particularly disgusting example, a former Louisiana state Senator and mayor was found guilty of calling a police officer charged with investigating claims of child abuse and attempting to get him to change his testimony at an upcoming child custody hearing.  The father contributed $1,000 to the senator’s campaign in July 2006.  In December 2006, the mother was arrested and accused of simple assault when the boyfriend attempted to take custody of the child.  A child abuse investigation into the mother ensued and the senator personally called the police officer handling the investigation and, according to testimony, asked the officer to help the father at the hearing.  The mother later sued the Senator, the city, and the police department, winning a $400,000 verdict.

US Senator, Lobbying Firm Enable Contributor to Get nearly $20M in Research Contracts for Ebola, other Diseases; Contributor Defrauds Govt of $3.9M, Likely Delays Vaccine

This story centers around a company called GenPhar, its president and CEO Jian-Yun “John” Dong, his wife Dahner Wang and an unnamed US Senator.  Dong, Wang, their daughter and GenPhar employees contributed over $50,000 to this Senator and his PAC even as the Senator helped direct over $19.6 million in earmarks and grants towards the company, many of which the Senator specifically requested.  GenPhar hired American Defense International (ADI), spending $280,000 to help the company get grants from the US military and National Institute for Health to research vaccines for the dengue fever, Marburg virus and the Ebola virus. Dong and Genphar were later accused of misusing or stealing $3.6 million of the funds intended for Ebola and Marburg research, using it, among other things, for travel and to pay at least some of ADI’s expenses.  The jury deadlocked on Dong, but convicted the company.  Genphar did conduct some research, but as of November 2014 the fate and usefulness of the Ebola research was unknown.

Dong was convicted of making illegal contributions for using at least $31,000 he received from a foreign business partner to make contributions to federal candidates in other people’s names, including many of the contributions identified above.  The Senator has not been accused of any wrongdoing or illegal activity in this investigation.  It’s important to remember that, while the source of the contributions was illegal, the same outcome (the Senator helps Genphar with grants and Genphar proceeds to defraud the government) likely would have happened if Genphar had been able to generate the contributions legally.

Mayor Pushed $1 Lease for George Lucas Museum in Controversial Location, Campaign Took nearly $50K from Related Parties

In agreeing to bring the Lucas Museum for Narrative Arts to their city, the mayor agreed to and strongly supports an agreement to lease property located on a protected waterfront for $1 a year.  In 2011, the mayor took $50,000 from Lucas’ wife Melody Hobson and executives at the Walt Disney Company, who will benefit from the deal.  Hobson, a native of the city, first reached out to the Mayor about the museum.

Was Your Ambulance Driver Selected because of Union & Corporate Contributions?

A California city recently decided to replace its longtime emergency service provider Gerber Ambulance, with a new provider, McCormick Ambulance for a one-year contract after a fund supporting the mayor took in $35,000 from related interests.   McCormick Ambulance gave $25,000 to the Torrance Voters Political Action Committee to Support [the] Mayor, while the Firefighters Union, which has opposed Gerber in the past, contributed $10,000, both significantly more than other independent expenditures or contributions in the race.  The Fire Department has been a long-time critic of Gerber’s services, partly because, reportedly, the department wants to bring ambulance services under its control.  McCormick, in an email to the selection committee, indicated that it would be willing to work with the Fire Department to transition services.

States, Counties & Cities Regularly Hire Major Contributors as Attorneys, Outsource Work to Them

State attorneys general are increasingly dependent on outside attorneys to take on lawsuits in return for 20% of any financial reward.  Meanwhile, these attorneys make large contributions to the attorney general, often just before or after signing contracts to take on cases.  In one state, attorneys have won $57.5 million in fees while contributing over $395,000 to the AG’s campaigns.  In cities and counties, meanwhile, legal contractors are closely tied to one party and regularly contribute to that party and its candidates, with legal representation changing when a new party takes over.  In one California city, this takes the form of the City Attorney hiring campaign contributors to handle probes into police conduct, sparking a federal investigation into whether these contributions influenced the decision to hire the firms.

Further examples & related articles:

Major City Has Paid over $1M to Top Mayoral Contributor to Manage Pensions, Fees Increased after Mayor Took Office

TX Councilwoman Accepts $6,000 from Taxi PAC while Crafting Favorable Rules

Billionaire Investor Uses Contributions to Spark Federal Investigation into Company to Drive Down Value for His Profit

MO Millionaire Acknowledges Using Contributions to Shape Legislature to Eliminate Income, Corporate Taxes

CREW: 67 Senators Used Campaign Funds to Enrich Family, $1.3M to Relatives, $2.6M to Related Entities

Not Guilty Pleas in Widespread MS Investigation Involving $700,000, Beachfront Property, Private Prison Industry

How Big Box Retailers Use Contributions to Shape Elections, Policies

Study Finds Companies that Contribute More Have Lower Tax Burdens

Contributors to Gov Win $82.8M in State Contracts after Having None

MO Millionaire Acknowledges Using Contributions to Push Income, Corporate Taxes on Wealthy

St. Louis Today: “Technically, Missouri’s political system is headquartered at the state Capitol in Jefferson City. But its real epicenter may be a gray stone mansion on a quiet residential street in St. Louis’ Central West End.

“There, 70-year-old multimillionaire Rex Sinquefield pads around in dress socks, shows off his art collection to guests and — to hear U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill tell it — pulls the state’s political strings like a high-priced puppetmaster.

“He dismisses the allegation that he’s trying to “buy” government. “I have never given money to a candidate or an officeholder in the belief that they’re going change their position on something,” he said.

“But he doesn’t deny his critics’ other central point: that his unprecedented political spending is largely meant to promote the goal of eliminating Missouri’s income tax and corporate taxes — which mostly hit the rich — while making up some of the difference with higher sales taxes, which hit everyone.

“Do that, he says with almost religious certainty, and Missouri’s economic boom will follow.

“‘Get rid of your personal tax, get rid of your corporate taxes, don’t punish work, don’t punish profits, don’t punish productivity,’ he says. ‘Those taxes punish the things you need the most of … You end up hurting people at the bottom if you try to overtax the people at the top. You don’t want to punish the investing class.'”

Lobbying, Campaign Contributions Partly Responsible for Growing Wealth Gap

PBS: “Twenty percent of Forbes’ 2014 billionaires had some stake in the financial and insurance sectors, with the richest 10 possessing familiar names like Buffett, Soros and Bloomberg. More campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties come from the financial sector than any other source, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And with American finance billionaires experiencing a one-year wealth increase of 17 percent, they’ve had money to spend.

“The financial sector spent $400 million on lobbying in the United States, and another estimated $150 million in the European Union in 2013. In the last U.S. presidential election year, the industry spent $571 million.

“But the billionaires who saw the greatest increase in wealth were those with “interests and activities” in the pharmaceutical and health care sectors. They’re not the household names their elite cousins in finance are, but with a 47 percent collective wealth increase between 2013 and 2014, and health care at the center of America’s political debate, they’ve had significant clout.

“The pharmaceutical and health care sectors spent more on lobbying in 2013 than any other sector in the U.S., dishing out more than $487 million. Their influence has been felt in Europe, too, where these sectors spend an estimated $50 million each year.”

Poll: Dissatisfaction with Government Americans’ #1 Concern

Gallup: “Unemployment ranks well down the list this month, with government dissatisfaction and the economy in general at the top. In addition to those three issues, at least 6% of Americans mentioned immigration, the federal debt and a decline in moral values as top problems.”

Citizens United Represents a Shift from Previous Jurisprudence, Not a Continuation

Reuters: “In 2002, federal officeholders were banned from soliciting, and donors were banned from giving large contributions to, the national parties because they created widespread opportunities for corruption — for the buying and selling of government influence and decisions.

“Former federal officeholders provided affidavits in the case of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission supporting these restrictions on large party contributions, known as soft money. The Supreme Court in 2003 upheld the restrictions in McConnell.

“Here’s an example of the affidavits:

“Former Republican Senate Whip Alan Simpson stated:

“I have seen firsthand how the current campaign-financing system prostitutes ideas and ideals, demeans democracy and debases debates. … Donations from the tobacco industry to Republicans scuttled tobacco legislation, just as contributions from the trial lawyers to Democrats stopped tort reform. … Big labor and big business use large soft-money donations to corrupt the system to the detriment of the little guy.

“The McConnell decision was consistent with almost 40 years of Supreme Court precedent — where the court generally upheld the constitutionality of campaign-finance laws.

“This changed, however, with the appointments to the Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005 and Justice Samuel Alito in 2006. These appointments created a 5-to-4 ideological majority that has consistently supported plaintiffs hostile to campaign-finance laws.”

Study Finds that Public Financing Reduces Incumbent Advantage, Increases Competitiveness but also Polarization

Washington Post: “That is the conclusion of political scientist Andrew Hall. He focuses on state legislative elections and compares trends in the five states that implemented robust public funding programs — Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin — to trends in other states. Here is what he finds:

• As intended, public funding reduces the financial advantage of incumbents.
• As intended, public funding reduces the incumbents’ margin of victory. That is, it makes elections more competitive.
• Not intended: public financing makes polarization in the state legislature worse.”

“In a more elaborate statistical analysis, Hall examines the gap between Republican and Democratic legislators representing similar districts. In a polarized legislature, a Republican and a Democrat will tend to vote in very different ways even though they represent essentially the same constituents. Hall finds that public financing increases this gap between the parties by 30 percent.”

Here’s the original study.  One anti-campaign finance reform writer argues that this shows that all sources of money have value.  I think it shows that large amounts of spending have created an artificial idea of what moderate is and with public financing creating more input from the public it’s going to take a while for the system to reset.

Activists March Across CA, CT for Change

Concord Monitor: “Kai Newkirk organized a 500-mile march across California to promote political equality regardless of wealth. In part, he learned how to coordinate that movement, an effort of the group 99 Rise that he said was a ‘huge logistical undertaking,’ from his experience last year with the N.H. Rebellion.”

“They arrived in the state capital after 37 days of walking. Newkirk said not every night of the trek was planned, but as they moved along and gained attention, they didn’t have any problems finding places to stay.”

“The N.H. Rebellion, with its much shorter timespan and distance, follows a more strict plan as it makes its way from Dixville Notch to Concord – and as simultaneous walks begin out of Portsmouth, Nashua and Keene.

“N.H. Rebellion Director Jeff McLean said this year’s event is much more complicated than the previous one because of the additional routes. He said compared with last year, which had an abundance of organizers with clear roles, the team members have been stretched out.

Republican Pollster Calls for Party to Embrace Campaign Finance Reform

“”Poll after poll shows that the majority of voters of all political stripes are alarmed at the record amounts of money pouring into elections. Voters feel they are being drowned out.

“A bi-partisan poll conducted last year by my firm, Chesapeake Beach Consulting (Republican) and Lake Research Partners (Democratic), found that voters favor a constitutional amendment by a 61-28 percent margin. Presented with arguments for and against an amendment, Republicans strongly favor the amendment – by a 54-36 percent margin. Our poll also found that by a 6-1 margin, voters say that reducing the influence of money in politics is an important issue.

“Until recently, campaign finance reform has been part of the conservative agenda. Bipartisan reform efforts included the 1907 Tillman Act, which banned direct corporate contributions, the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act and the strong amendments to that law that were passed after the Watergate scandal. Let’s not forget the McCain-Feingold Act, introduced by Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and signed into law in 2003 by Republican President George W. Bush.”

Republican Legislator Praises Benefits of ME Public Financing

Bill Moyers: “I’ve had more people over the years say “Ed, you don’t need to do this. We’ll help you raise the money.” I know that I could get money, having worked for the largest savings bank in the state of Maine, well connected to the broker community, well connected to the bankers associations. Raising money would not have been a difficulty.

“People think, ‘well, the $375 that I get from the Maine bankers, that isn’t gonna sway me.’ But back in the back of your mind, every time a vote comes up for the Maine bankers, a vote that they’re endorsing, you can’t help but be subconsciously thinking ‘they gave me money last year, and I’m gonna need to get some money from them next year when I run again.’ It may or may not have influenced you, but it’s there playing somewhere in the back of your mind, it has to be. And I think, absolutely, to some degree, it does make a difference.

“The Clean Election program does two things. Well, it does more than that, but it does two major, major things. It stops you from being committed to special interest groups, and it forces you to go out and knock on doors and meet the public.”

Role, Size of SuperPACs Continue to Expand, Coordination Workarounds Found

NPR: “But for wealthy donors who are deeply interested in Jeb Bush’s political future, Right to Rise SuperPAC seems the better option. At the superPAC, donors can give hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions of dollars. Bush can even solicit the big contributions himself — something he couldn’t do as a declared candidate.

“It’s a new twist in post-Citizens United politics.

“The heart of Citizens United is the notion that superPACs, and other outside groups, are completely independent of candidates. That underpins the Court’s conclusion that unregulated money from big donors wouldn’t be corrupting to lawmakers.

‘Federal law says federal candidates and officeholders can’t coordinate with superPACs. But until Bush becomes a candidate, that restriction doesn’t apply.”