Wyoming campaign finance reform should focus on disclosure
By Bill Cubin Posted in Policy — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Restoring the public’s confidence in the elections process and in those who serve in elected office is a worthy goal. Those in public office who have the courage to stand up to special interests and try to reclaim the political process for the people should be applauded. The members of the Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Interim Committee are attempting to be those kinds of public servants. Unfortunately, they are falling woefully short.
Mind you, it is not out of malice that they are doomed to failure. It is because they have begun with a flawed understanding of politics, and specifically money in politics. There are some things about politics that they will never be able to change no matter how much they try to legislate.
It is a fact that rich Republicans and Democrats have a lot of influence in politics in Wyoming and the United States. They can and do use their money to contribute to and influence political candidates and causes. Not only that, but they have advisors to make sure the money they deploy is done so legally.
Remember the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill? The authors of that bill sold it to the American people by leading them to believe that the influence special interest groups had with members of Congress, and other high ranking federal government officials, would be lessened by expanding the control of the federal government over money in politics.
Does anyone believe that there is less money in federal campaigns today? Does anyone believe special interests have less influence today? Does anyone believe that candidates for federal office feel less pressure to raise money for their campaigns today? Obviously not.
Federal campaign finance laws are a mess. I have enough experience in dealing with these laws that I feel very comfortable making that statement. The reason they are a mess is because they attempt to accomplish the impossible; control money in politics while not running afoul of the first amendment. Does anyone believe Congress has done a good job cleaning up money in politics?
The members of the Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Interim Committee have drafted a bill that would limit contributions political action committees can make to state-wide candidates to $7,000 per election and $3,500 to local and county-wide candidates. Currently, there are no limits. In addition, they propose increasing the limit individuals can contribute from $1,000 per election to $3,500. Democrat State Senator Ken Decaria said of this bill, “We’re trying to help public perception.” Fat chance, Senator. Let me tell you why.
I am a CPA in Wyoming and it didn’t take me two minutes to find a loophole large enough to drive a train loaded with cash through. Under the current draft of the bill, one wealthy individual still could setup 100 political action committees, contribute $7,000 of his/her own money to each PAC, and then, with a wink and a nod, informally direct all 100 PACs to contribute that $7,000 to one state-wide candidate. That would mean this hypothetical wealthy person legally contributed $700,000 to one candidate.
If our wealthy contributor did this for both the primary and general election in the same year that would mean this individual legally gave $1.4 million to one candidate. In addition, this wealthy person could time the contribution to occur several days before the election so that nobody would know about it until the election was over.
As long as the focus of campaign finance laws revolves around capping contributions and controlling money, there will always be people who will figure out a way around the caps. It is a fact proven by the Federal campaign finance system.
The focus of the Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Interim Committee should be enhancing the disclosure requirements of political contributions through technology. Contributions reaching a certain threshold should be disclosed electronically to the Secretary of State within a short time period, say 48 hours. Furthermore, campaigns should be required to electronically report their comprehensive contributions and expenditures more frequently, say monthly. Lastly, all filings should be able to be viewed over the internet by the public almost immediately after they have been filed.
Rich political activists and special interest groups will find a thousand different ways to get as much money to their candidates as they want. To think otherwise is very naive. However, by enhancing the disclosure requirements of campaign contributions, the public will have the ability to judge for themselves whether or not the contributions received by a particular candidate reveal anything important to the voter.
In the end, Wyoming campaign finance laws should focus on disclosure. This is the only way to help the public perception of politics.
Bill Cubin is a certified public accountant in Wyoming and is the Chairman of the Natrona County Republican Party. His mother is U.S. Rep. Barbara Cubin.
Definition: any group of people with whom you disagree on any given issue. We are all "special", although some us more than others.
I wasn't aiming it at you. Sorry, should have made that clear.
If someone gave $7,000 through 100 pacs then it would be more difficult to track the money back. If someone simply gave $700,000 to a single candidate then at least the voters would know. The opposing candidate could even make it an issue, and it should be.