Will money talk?

As Roy Cho, the little known rookie Democrat, opposes Scott Garrett, the ingrained incumbent Republican, the odds are good that this race will not simply come down to political ideals and ideas, but, likely, it will come down to something Cho doesn’t want it to, and something that Garrett does: money. Scott Garrett, especially in comparison to Cho, has more than enough money to seemingly be able to put this race away early; the over three million dollars in his war chest, in addition to the fact that Garrett has been in office for almost 12 years should be enough for Garrett’s mind to be at ease for this upcoming election. However, this election is far from over, and it looks like Garrett appears to be a little more nervous than the sheer financial numbers suggest.

Scott Garrett’s money, to the most recent report, June 30^th 2014, has come, largely from PACs and large individual donations, totaling more than 1.3 million dollars.(2) This alone should not mean much, but that money, coupled with the 3 million plus dollars that he has in personal money should be cause, on the surface, for great concern from Roy Cho.  But, Scott Garrett, as mentioned before, is a candidate with 12 years of experience in the House, and 6 election wins under his belt; Scott Garrett is not a man who should need to raise well upward of 1 million dollars to defeat a veritable no-name who is running for the first time, but right now that is exactly what he is doing.(2)  That Garrett is even interested in raising money at the rate he currently is should be considered, at the least, a small victory for Cho. After all, if Garrett thought the race was locked up, he wouldn’t be wasting his donors’ time, patience, or money.

Cho’s finances, on the other hand, resemble those of a challenger who is fighting above his weight class. When contrasted to the war chest of Garrett, Roy Cho’s funds might as well be stored in a Disney character wallet.(1) Yes, Cho’s raised money is right in line, at least with other New Jersey House races, with the other challengers that are projected to have a chance in their respective races, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is still monetarily dwarfed by Garrett. (2)Scott Garrett, at least on principle alone, should have no problem dominating the financial aspects of this race, be it in paying for premium ads, or simply by paying people to mobilize voters; he has the clear advantage.

Ultimately, just because he has the advantage, as of now, doesn’t mean the balance of power cant shift. It is probably true that Cho, unless by means of a small miracle, will never be able to compete with Garrett financially, but that isn’t necessarily a death knell, after all, it was Garrett who won his first election despite raising less than his opponent. It is however, a necessity for Cho to make things a little closer, he can’t compete with Garrett without PACs and larger donors of his own, and it is his responsibility to appeal to them, just to give himself a chance.

Roy Cho Finances. Crowdpac.com (1)https://www.crowdpac.com/candidates/133869/roy-cho (Accessed 10/1/14)

Opensecrets.com (2)http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/elections.php?chart=S&cid=N00000743&newMem=&cycle=Career , http://www.opensecrets.org/races/election.php?state=NJ Accessed 10/1/14

Insurance, guns and money: Pat Meehan's Reelection is Funded Mostly by Two Industy Giants

What do Boeing Aircrafts and Blue Cross/Blue Shield have in common? Practically nothing, one is an Aircraft manufacturer and the other is a Healthcare giant. However they both have made large contributions to U.S Congressman Pat Meehan’s reelection campaign (Center for Responsive Politics). But what is the reasoning for these contributions?

Boeing’s manufacturing plant for the V-22 Osprey “widow maker” rotor prop aircraft, as well as the CH-47 Chinook Helicopter, is based in Ridley, Pennsylvania which happens to be Meehan’s district (Meehan). Now that is an obvious relation, however another interesting fact is that Pat Meehan is on the Committee on Homeland Security, this Committee has influence over military contract decisions (Ballotpedia). What this means is that Boeing wants to have Meehan on their side in case of trouble with keeping the V-22 in service. This topic has been approached often in the House and Meehan has led the fight for keeping it in service (Meehan).

Blue Cross/Blue Shield have found a Healthcare ally in Pat Meehan. Donating to his campaign this year has helped maintain that. Meehan has voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as well as voting for HR 2009 which would prevent the IRS and Treasury Secretary from using the powers granted to them under the ACA (Ballotpedia). Voting to maintain privatized Healthcare maintains Blue Cross/Blue Shield as the Healthcare giant it is.  Keeping Meehan on their payroll makes sure that in the future he will vote consistently in their interests and if they need a favor he will be dependable for them.

These two industry giants are involved in different sectors, however they both have found a “friend” in Congressman Meehan. By providing funds to his reelection campaign they hope he will stay loyal to them and vote in their favor. However with him in the House it is a guarantee that there is one more congressperson who will vote against ACA and for more military spending.

References

Patrick Meehan “Congressman Patrick Meehan” Web, www.Meehan.House.gov

Ballotpedia “Ballotpedia – Patrick Meehan” Web, www.Ballotpedia.org/Patrick_Meehan

Center for Responsive Politics “Patrick Meehan” Web, www.Opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00031134

Everyone's Working Their Way Up The Ladder

           As 2014 draws to an end, political analysts turn their sights towards the 2016 presidential election. Of the people running for re-election in 2014 some of them are considered possible candidates for president. Mark Warner is one of those presidential hopefuls, he is a senator from Virginia and recently won his election in 2014 to remain in office. Senator Warner Raised 13,989,809 dollars for his last campaign while Ed Gillespie and Robert Sarvis, the other two candidates who ran against Warner, raised 4,164,818 dollars and 47,167 dollars (Mark Warner 2014). In the last decade a Senator seeking reelection has an 86.5% chance of being re-elected, which raises the question why would a Senator like Mark Warner need to raise $ 9,824,991 dollars more than his closest opponent (Reelection Rates Over the Years, 2012)?

            Presidential potentials like Warner are presidential potentials for a reason. Warner is popular enough to be considered for the White House so he isn’t in much danger of losing his election. In 2008 Warner won his election and received 65 percent of the vote, however someone so secure in their seat doesn’t need to raise $ 13,989,809 dollars in their next election (Real Clear Politics, 2008). According to Ballot Pedia, Warner is a possible presidential candidate for 2016. When someone reaches that status companies often give money to the presidential hopeful in an attempt to win favor (Possible U.S. Presidential Candidates, 2014). Due this added attention he is getting donations from outside Virginia from people and companies who want influence. When Warner raises this large amount of money he is indirectly setting up a database of donors for his campaign in 2016. Companies, PACs, banks and other types of lobbyist groups are trying to get Warner’s favor now, so he knows who was been looking out for him since the beginning. Warner’s biggest donors to this point have been banks, health insurance companies, Railway subsidiaries, and energy companies. JP Morgan Chase & Co. donated 103,916 dollars to Warners campaign; other banks like Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Mastercard Inc. and etc. also donated (Mark Warner, 2014). Life insurance companies like Prudential Financial donated $ 40,250 dollars (Mark Warner, 2014). Finall transport companies like Norfolk Southern donated 75,898 dollars (Mark Warner, 2014). Warner has expanded out from local donations and is now receiving massive donations from companies which operate nationally and globally, which means Warner has an one eye on the whole country and one eye on Virginia.

When a candidate has one eye on his state and one on the country at large it usually means that candidate has more of a stance on national issues while his opponents have to focus on issues that are more local. While Ed Gillespie only clearly lays out his stance for four major issues Economic Growth, education return, tax and regulatory relief and offshore drilling and other sources of national energy (ED GILLESPIE AGENDA, 2014). Warner has a stance a plethora of more issues like the economy, health care, financial reform, education development, energy, the environment and natural resources, immigration, consumer protection housing finance reform and national security (Mark R. Warner U.S. Senator, 2014). Having more of a stance on all matters is important to Warner because this shows that he is expanding out of Virginia and trying to take a stand on our nations problems which he needs to do if he wants to become president, however Gillespie is only focused on the issues that plague Virginia because his only ambition is to become a senator.

            Even though Warner might make a good president, he doesn’t seem to be as focused on Virginia as his opponent would have if they he were elected in Warner’s place. Citizens of Virginia should be aware that Warner is receiving money from out of state corporations. Although citizens want their representatives to be nationally known and powerful, by electing someone who has their eye on a higher position potentially means that their representation could become out of touch with his constituents in the state that he is supposed to be representing. What they should really be focusing on is someone whose only intentions are for Virginia.

Sources:

"ED GILLESPIE AGENDA." Ed Gillespie for Senate. January 1, 2014. Accessed October 2, 2014. http://edforsenate.com/.

"Mark Warner." Open Secrets. Org. January 1, 2013. Accessed October 2, 2014. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00002097&type=I&newmem=N.

Mark R. Warner U.S. Senator from the Common Wealth of Virginia. January 1, 2014. Accessed October 2, 2014. http://www.warner.senate.gov/public/.

"Possible U.S. Presidential Candidates, 2016." Ballot Pedia. January 1, 2014. Accessed October 2, 2014. http://ballotpedia.org/Possible_U.S._presidential_candidates,_2016.

Real Clear Politics. January 1, 2008. Accessed October 2, 2014. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/senate/va/virginia_senate-537.html.

"Reelection Rates Over the Years." Open Secrets. Org. January 1, 2012. Accessed October 2, 2014. https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php.

"Sen. Mark Warner." Govtrack.us. January 1, 2014. Accessed October 2, 2014. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/mark_warner/412321.

The Irrelevant Truth About Campaign Finance

There is an overarching sentiment within the American public that campaign finance corrupts the representativeness of the government and the democratic nature of the electoral process. There is a common stigma that money can be equated to voice in the American political system. This is grounded in the belief that if candidates accept donations from individuals, businesses, party PACs, etc., they will be held to uphold those donors’ desires and goals during their term. Although this belief may seem logical, under the assumption that these donations are a form of bribery in relation to future preferred policy and legislation, I do not believe this is actually the case.

There is a fundamental issue imbedded in the idea that candidates will be held to the desires of donors in their future term. The reality is that donors contribute funds to candidates who already support their needs—an environmental agency would contribute to a environmentally friendly candidate, a large corporation will donate to a candidate who supports tax cuts for businesses, and so on. This becomes clear when analyzing any candidate’s donor base.

For example, in the 2014 Texas gubernatorial election, both candidates’ donor bases follow unsurprising trends. Republican candidate Greg Abbott’s biggest donations are from individuals (both in and out of state), frequently business and oil tycoons, who are regular GOP donors (Root). These donors are already ideologically connected to Abbott. They do not donate in the hope of influencing Abbott to push their preferred policies and legislation; they donate knowing that he will. Similarly, his democratic opponent Wendy Davis, gains the majority of her campaign funds from lawyers and lobbyists, as well as ideological and single-issue institutions (Root). Many of these lawyers practice environmental law, and know that Davis is a candidate that backs ecologically friendly policies, including anti-fracking legislation (Root). Additionally, Davis made a name for herself in 2013 by becoming the national poster-child for the pro-choice cause through her 11-hour filibuster which (unsuccessfully) attempted to prevent more stringent abortion regulations in Texas. Thus, it is not the least bit surprising that Davis’ top donors are single-issue institutions (in which the “single issue” in question is abortion). Most notably, Annie’s List, a Texan nonprofit which works to promote pro-choice women running for positions of power in Texas, donated $423,840 to Davis’s campaign, making the group the second largest single donor (Project Vote Smart).

So the truth is that donations probably don’t hold all too much sway in future policy decisions. Donors give to certain candidates because they KNOW these particular contenders will support the legislation they favor. These contributions are not hopeful donations or a threatening bribes. They want to support candidates who are ideologically connected their causes. However, in this case, the reality is far less important than the perception is.

As previously stated, there is a prevalent conception among the American people that money buys voice and the enormous donations that candidates receive corrupts the representative nature and fairness of the American democracy. A recent Rassmussen poll finds that 53 percent of voters believe “neither party…is the party of the American people.” This sentiment is substantially grounded in the perception that those who donate in turn have a greater say. Regardless of the reality that donations are not policy-nudges or bribes, the perception causes the American people to choose not to participate. This in turn affects voting practices and consequently the representativeness of the American government. That is how parties lose the American people.

 Even if only briefly analyzed, it becomes clear that campaign finance is not an indication of corruption or bribery, but of a certain institution’s faith and trust in a candidate and a hope that that candidate will win. But the general public does not even “briefly analyze” campaign finance trends. They see the enormous quantity of money that is raised and used in campaigns and begin to have feelings of otherness. How can their single vote have a say in a 40 billion dollar election? The issue lies not in where the money comes from but in how much money there is. It’s not about blackmail or bribery; it is about the American people feeling separate from a flashy, expensive campaign. The candidates become characters of a sitcom that is their political system—celebrities, not representatives.

"Texas Governor's Race: Analyzing the Money, by Jay Root and Becca Aaronson." The Texas Tribune. Accessed October 3, 2014.

"The Voter's Self Defense System." Project Vote Smart. Accessed October 3, 2014.

"53% Think Neither Political Party Represents the American People - Rasmussen Reports™." 53% Think Neither Political Party Represents the American People - Rasmussen Reports™. Accessed October 3, 2014.

Speaking Though Your Wallet

As I continue to observe the race for Pennsylvania’s 8th congressional district the race remains “likely right” but lets take a deeper look into the issues of money in this election.  If we sift through the Open Secrets web page for this election, there is a lot of interesting information to be found.  The first thing to notice is that incumbent Fitzpatrick has a much bigger wallet than his competitor Strouse; $2,482,114-$1,016,010.  While they both received a majority of their funding from large corporations, Stouse supplemented his campaign with his own money yet Fitzpatricks next largest contributors come from PACs.  One might assume that this disparity would greatly damage Strouse’s chances but his campaign has actually spent $747,290 while Fitzpatricks campaign has only spent $689,367 (Open Secrets).  The candidates also have relatively similar out of state funding.  Although it is easy to say that more money means a better chance of election, the facts- at least in Fitzpatricks past campaigns- do not back that up.  In 2006, when running against Patrick Murphy, Fitzpatrick spent $770,110 more than Murphy but ended up losing the candidacy.  In his next race against Murphy, Fitzpatrick had a blatant disadvantage with only $2,090,793 as compared to Murphy’s $4,246,047 but came out victorious (Open Secrets).   Ok, so it appears as though the numbers will not give us any good answers, if there are any monetary issues in this campaign they are a bit further below the surface.

If we take a look back from this current race it appears that Fitzpatrick is not completely clean.  Back in 2012 Fitzpatrick was accused of making earmarks after proposing 8 tariff bills that directly benefited United Color Manufacturing Inc., a local Bucks County company.  What raised eyebrows was that just one month before the bills were introduced the owner of this company donated $5,500 to Fitzpatrick’s campaign and also had a history of donations to the republican party (Roll Call).  While there was no clear quid pro quo in this case and it did blow over, it is hard to imagine that their was not some ulterior motive when Fitzpatrick proposed these bills.  It could be said that he chose to support this domestic company because he is noted as a “Guardian of Small Business” (NFIB) and that it genuinely has nothing to do with the money.  There is no way to know for sure if this was a monetary issue, but we can always look back at his past decisions on this topic.

We all recall the scandal of Mitt Romney’s 47% remark but probably not as many people know that Mike Fitzpatrick had a 47% scandal of his own.  During that election Fitzpatrick was videotaped at a Tea Party rally saying that, “we need to support people who have a history and know what it is like to sign the front of a paycheck, not the back of a paycheck,” (KeyStone Politics).  Now, we can all read into this how we want but it is undeniable that Fitzpatrick is saying that those with more money deserve more support.  Whither or not Fitzpatrick was just pandering to Tea Party members, this quote exemplifies one of the main fears about money’s implications on politics, namely, that those with more money are more important than those in the working class.

When looking at numbers alone from Fitzpatricks campaigns there seems to be no danger when money plays a role in politics.  Sure Fitzpatrick gets large donations from Super Pacs but it does not shift how the election turns out.  The problem begins to appear as we look at what happens to those who donate.  Even though nothing illegal may be happening, it has a clear impact on the candidate’s decisions.  With money does come power and this fact is degrading our political system.  As those in the middle and lower classes see that only large donors reap the benefits of an election they lose the incentive to take part in one.  Politicians can deny this fact but as their salaries rise, voter turnout falls.  If this trend continues unabated, the wealth gap that currently haunts our economy will only keep growing.

Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics. “Pennsylvania District 08 Race”. Accessed October 1, 2014.

Strong, Jonathan. "Mike Fitzpatrick Tariff Bills to Benefit Donors." Roll Call. May 30, 2012. Accessed October 2, 2014.

Payne, Maureen M. "Assemblyman Michael Fitzpatrick Named a Guardian of Small Business | NFIB." National Federation of Independent Business. December 1, 2010. Accessed October 2, 2014.

Sternberger, Jake. "The Fallout From Mike Fitzpatrick’s “47%” Moment." Keystone Politics. September 27, 2012. Accessed October 2, 2014.