By Whitney Cheshire
So you think capping individual campaign contributions is the answer to our public corruption woes in
After campaigning for conservative candidates in a Democrat-dominated state for years, I can’t help but slouch in my chair and mutter something that sounds a bit like “uhhhhg” when I think of that nearly-perfected political machine known as “labor.”
As a Republican, it’s disheartening – to say the least – to sit back and watch the labor lobby fork over an excessively obscene amount of money for political candidates every cycle that, 99 times out of 100, goes into the pockets of Democrats.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in particular has been incredibly active in
Here’s the problem: AFSCME, like most labor unions, contributes money to candidates that it raises through member dues.
In essence, unions like AFSCME serve as large third-party political committees, where money is raised in one hand, and dolled out in the other. They make direct contributions to candidates and political action committees. They lobby elected officials both publicly and privately, and they have active and effective volunteer capabilities – boots on the ground – that mobilize at a moment’s notice.
Money is raised nationally and spent locally.
In a lot of ways, unions take on the same functions as the Democratic and Republican Parties. They advocate for policy changes for just about anything that affects “workers,” pretty much everything from minimum wage increases and government-run health care to immigrant amnesty.
But why am I writing about things that you already know?
Back to those contribution caps…
I can’t believe how often labor unions get forgotten when people say, “Boy howdy, the best way to get big money out of
Yeah, OK. Right.
“Caps” will lower the amount of money that you and I can give to our favored candidates, but it will exponentially empower those third-party groups that receive truckloads of money either through membership dues or wealthy, multi-million dollar benefactors like George Soros.
And as was proven by AFSCME in the 2004 presidential election cycle, money finds a way into campaigns. That year, it found its way into
Caps lead to money being spent elsewhere
Last year, the state Senate approved a bill that would limit contributions to individuals and third-party groups, but the House amended it to only place limits on contributions to individuals, and the bill died at the end of the session.
The bill will come up again next year. If the New Mexico Legislature imposes caps on candidates and doesn’t impose caps on PACs, it will only embolden groups like The Sierra Club, The National Resources Defense Council, labor unions and the Swiftboat Veterans, among others.
The result of limits to individuals but not third-party groups will be some feel-good, bury-your-head-like-an-ostrich, so-called ethics reform law that will produce prettier campaign finance reports for our candidates while the real money lands elsewhere. And it will land in a manner that is much more difficult to track.
Personally, I like knowing that
And here’s another problem. If the legislature approves contribution limits, we’ll have an ugly fight over in-kind contributions.
Right now, since candidates can accept unlimited amounts of money, they can also accept unlimited amounts of help from third parties like
It’s no secret that Doña Ana County Democrats were successful in state House races in 2006 because they were heavily in-kinded by the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee and received substantial union volunteer help as well.
It’s difficult, if not impossible, to assign a monetary value to many campaign activities. But if the Legislature imposes monetary restrictions on contributions, we’ll have to try. What a mess that would be.
I’m so tired of hearing that
And, without a doubt, Democratic candidates are benefiting from the lopsided “caps” system.
Better options
What are our options?
If you talk to some Republicans at the Roundhouse, you’ll get a variety of suggestions. Many will end up as legislative proposals in 2008.
Here are the ones I like:
• Sunlight: Require more frequent reporting and more detail on donors and improve the searchable functions of the Secretary of State’s reporting Web site.
• Enforcement: There are plenty of laws on the books. Let’s use them for a change.
• Amending reports after the fact: This seems minor, but there’s nothing worse than someone getting caught cheating and then – oops – going back and changing it.
• Fully fund the secretary of state: Give the office the money it needs to investigate violations.
Capping individual contributions is just bad policy. It’s bad on the federal level, and it’s bad on the state level.
We may not like seeing $100,000 contributions to candidates but, honestly, we should be glad just to see it.
So to our instate labor unions, high-dollar donors and third-party special interest groups on this Labor Day week, I say, “carry on.” Because, like it or not, agree with you or not, you’re going to do it anyway – contribution caps or not.