OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

Obama's Bill to Expose Big Political Fundraisers

August 11, 2008 - by Donny Shaw

(This post is the first in a series on legislation being sponsored in the Senate by presidential candidates Barack Obama (D-IL) and John McCain (R-AZ). Subscribe to our rss feed to get the rest.)

Bundlers are the ultimate campaign-finance loophole exploiters. By rounding up checks from their networks of friends and colleagues, bundlers skirt the legal individual contribution limit of $2,300 and give political candidates huge sums of bundled money, sometimes upwards of $2 million, and often secretly.

Until Congress passed its ethics bill last September, anybody, including registered lobbyists, could bundle together as much money as they wanted for a politician without having to disclose anything beyond their own $2,300 contribution. The ethics bill put in place a new rule requiring registered lobbyists to disclose their bundling activities. This partly closed a blind spot that was allowing corporations, individuals and special interest groups to secretly curry favor with the politicians that, if elected, would be making policy decisions affecting their interests.

Barack Obama’s bill, S.2030, would strengthen the bundling disclosure rule. Under his bill, everyone, not just registered lobbyists, would be required to disclose their bundling activities if they raise more than $15,000 within six months for a congressional candidate, and more than $50,000 in the two years leading up to election day for a presidential candidate. A full list including the names, address’, and employers of each donor in the bundle, including the bundler herself, would have to be made public in a manner that is searchable, sortable, and downloadable.

“We must have full transparency in campaigns to remove the perception that politicians are indebted to any one special interest at the expense of the public interest," Obama said upon introducing the bill. "The American people have a right to know who is behind the excessive money in politics, and deserve leadership that will achieve a truly open and honest government that works for them.”

Both Obama and McCain have voluntarily disclosed information about all the bundlers to their presidential campaigns, but both fall short of the stringent requirements – employer, amount, searchable, downloadable, etc. – that would be required by Obama’s bill (Obama’s bundlers can be viewed <a href=“http://answercenter.barackobama.com/cgi-bin/barackobama.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=130&p_created=1176309944&p_sid=SXIHS3bj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9NCw0JnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0wJnBfcHY9JnBfY3Y9JnBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9ZnVuZHJhaXNpbmc*&p_li=&p_topview=1>here; McCain’s ”http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/fundraisers.htm">here).

While the bill would increase disclosure requirements by adding non-lobbyist bundlers, it actually seems to decrease disclosure for one demographic: bundlers – lobbyists or otherwise – who gather less than $50,000 for a presidential candidate. Currently, under Congress’s ethics legislation, the disclosure threshold is $15,000 across the board. Obama’s bill explicitly increases that threshold to $50,000 for bundled contributions to a presidential candidate.

It’s a strange choice. In Obama’s press release on the bill, he stresses the need for presidential candidates to disclose their “largest bundlers,” which is, of course, important. But why exclude all the small and medium bundlers from disclosure? It seems to me that anyone who hands a candidate a lump sum greater than their legal limit as an individual should have some special disclosure requirements, spousal bundling not included. No?

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.
 

Comments

  • Dem02020 08/11/2008 9:58pm

    WHY IS IT, that if you give thousands and thousands of dollars to U.S. Senators and to U.S. Representatives, who write the Law, and to Presidential candidates, who aspire to administer and enforce that Law… why is it those thousands and thousands of dollars are called “contributions”, but if you try and give a cop who’s writing you a speeding ticket even just fifty dollars, it’s called a “bribe”?

  • jsgarvin 08/12/2008 7:01am

    I’m likely misunderstanding something here (and I haven’t read Obama’s bill, so my comment is strictly based on the above blog post), but….

    You say that, “Obama’s bill explicitly increases that threshold to $50,000 for bundled contributions to a presidential candidate.”

    But, earlier you said “everyone would be required to disclose their bundling activities if they raise more than $15,000 *within six months* for a congressional candidate, and more than $50,000 *in the two years* leading up to election day for a presidential candidate.”

    By my math, $15,000 every six months for two years is $60,000, so a $50,000 two year threshold is actually LOWERING the limit, not increasing it. It also sounds to me like, with Obama’s change, raising $20,000 in one six month period, and $10,000 in each of the other 3 six month periods in the two years leading up to a presidential election would now require reporting on the entire $50,000 in bundles, not just the $20,000 raised in that one six month period.

  • donnyshaw 08/12/2008 10:51am

    Hey jsgarvin,

    Sorry if I wasn’t clear on this. The $15,000 threshold is for candidates running for a seat in Congress. Under, Congress’ ethics bill, the $15,000 threshold applies to lobbyists giving bundled funds to any federal candidate or officeholder, leadership PAC, or political party, which includes presidential candidates. Obama’s bill creates a new, higher threshold for presidential candidates.

    Here’s how it’s stated in the bill summary:

    “Increases the applicable threshold triggering such reporting requirement from $15,000 (currently applicable to any authorized committee of a candidate, a leadership PAC, or a political party committee) to $50,000 in the case of a presidential candidate committee.”

Due to the archiving of this blog, comment posting has been disabled.