Showing posts with label Campaigns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Campaigns. Show all posts

Sunday, November 27, 2011

David Catanese Was Only Half-Right

Eleven days ago, I emailed David Catanese about factual errors in his reporting of Ann Wagner's third quarter fundraising. Wagner is running against Ed Martin in Missouri's 2nd Congressional District. This past October, Catanese reported:
Just over 20 percent of Wagner's third quarter donations came from employees of the national rental car company, where her husband is a vice president, according to an analysis by POLITICO.
Wagner, who is vying for the 2nd Congressional seat being vacated by Rep. Todd Akin, took in about $108,000 from Enterprise employees in Missouri and states as far away as Oregon, Nevada and Alabama.
Steven Nelson sets the record straight over at The Daily Caller. Wagner received about $202k in Q3 from Enterprise Rent-a-Car, it's subsidiaries, holding companies, employees and their spouses. In total, she's received nearly $250k of her million+ funding from sources linked to Enterprise. Catanese needs to correct the figures in his story.

Nelson at TheDC also noted:
In 2008 Enterprise requested bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, writing to Congress to ask for funds. According to the Wall Street Journal, language was inserted in the TARP bill by House lawmakers to enable the government to grant loans to rental car companies.
I hadn't known that Enterprise was on the dole for TARP funding. That explains why I haven't seen the Wagners at any Tea Parties.

Nepotism always has a corrosive effect on politics. In 2010 when Ed Martin was running against Russ Carnahan, Tea Partiers were appalled at the donations Carnahan received from his brother's wind farm business. As TheDC points out, Ann's husband "is Enterprise’s government and public affairs vice president and a registered lobbyist." In other words, we see a similar sort of crony capitalism today with the Wagners that we saw with the Carnahans back in 2010.

The story behind the data showing that Wagner's campaign has gotten about a quarter of its funding from Enterprise sources goes back to the document parties that 24thState.com kicked off in October of 2009. Some of the moms involved in those original document parties began to investigate Wagner's fund raising. That data is easily accessible at sites like OpenSecrets.org. The trick is determining who the employers are and if they're connected in an interesting way. In the case of Ann Wagner's Enterprise donations figuring out that the Crawford Group is an Enterprise holding company was a key discovery. This should serve as a rallying cry to Tea Party moms (and others) to dig into the donation data.

I was not involved in researching Wagner's contributions, though I have reviewed the data. Kudos to the moms who did the hard research and one in particular who led the effort. She and they understandably wish to remain anonymous.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Anonymizing Campaign Influence

Megan McArdle had a really interesting idea over at The Atlantic about campaign donations. In addressing the transparency of campaign donations, McArdle blazes her own path:
I've long toyed with the notion that we should go the other way: allow unlimited donations, including from corporations. But force them to go through an institutions which strips off the names and pools the money, so it's impossible to see who donated, or even the size of the individual donations. Once a month, you get a check from the campaign finance bank, and that's it.

I have no idea whether this would pass constitutional muster. But it would certainly cripple lobbying via campaign contributions, while allowing people to give as much support as they wish to candidates who they think will further their interests. The overall result would probably be much less money in politics, with candidates much more dependent on small donors. And it's possible that this could advantage incumbents--who get free television time--even more.
I'm interested to know what others think about this idea. I'll have to think about it a bit more, but my initial reaction is that it wont work because candidates will find a way to signal that they need money and donors will find a way to signal that they've given money, so, in the end, the people that want to know (the candidates and their donors) will all know anyway.

The reason I started blogging is related to the problem of how to finance a campaign without allowing too many restrictions on donors and candidates. I worry that donors have too much influence over candidates, so I would like campaigning and campaign donations to be completely separated from service in elected office. Toward that end, I believe that we should implement a new kind of term limit. Specifically, legislators should not be allowed to serve consecutive terms.

The idea is that you are either amassing the funds and running a campaign or you're serving the public, but you can not do both simultaneously. Once elected legislators would have less reason to be beholden to their financiers since they could presumably find new ones in the two years between their current and future terms.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Election Night Watch Party Photos


I took the photos above at a couple of watch parties in the St. Louis area Tuesday evening. Turnout in the region was light as it typically is for April elections. The evenings results were disappointing.

Jesse Irwin, the Republican candidate for Alderman in St. Louis's 10th Ward, lost by 39%. Prop E, which would have repealed St. Louis's earnings tax had it been voted down, passed with a whopping 75% margin. Apparently, the citizens of St. Louis enjoy taxing people who come to the city to work while denying those workers any representation within city government.

Results in St. Louis county weren't any better. Chip Wood lost the Assessor's race to Jake Zimmerman by 27%. Rick Gans lost by 7% to the union backed Steven Swyer in the race for the Monarch Fire District Director. Mike Geller was running for one of three seats on the Rockwood School Board. He finished fourth, missing a seat on the board by less than 300 votes (about 1%).