It appears that the Massachusetts legislature is poised to make two very sensible reforms: dramatically increase the disclosure requirements for independent expenditures; and raise the direct contribution limits from $500 to $1,000. Per the Globe, “[u]nder the proposed law, super PACs will have to disclose their funding sources within seven days of each expenditure they make. The timeline would accelerate to every 24 hours during the eight days before a primary and again eight days before the general election. In addition, PACs that run television advertisements would have to list in the ad each of the top five ‘persons or entities’ who contributed the most money.”
These are both badly-needed changes. Enhanced disclosure requirements are a necessary response to Citizens United and other developments that permit essentially unlimited outside spending on elections. If such spending can’t be regulated (and, at the moment, it can’t), at least we can know where it’s coming from.
As for the direct contribution limits, I’ve long thought that MA’s $500 limit – among the lowest in the country – is too low. The Globe says it hasn’t been raised in about 20 years, and $500 in 1994 bought you about what $800 gets you today. If Massachusetts is going to be at the forefront of trying to control independent expenditures, both via these new disclosure rules and also via voluntary measures like People’s Pledges, we should also make it possible for candidates to finance their own campaigns properly.
So, if the Globe’s description of the new legislation is accurate, I’m fer it.
I’m going to just talk about the $500 per calendar year limit. What would this mean for candidates in the governors race? Clearly, what this would do is open up each candidate to go back and tap whoever has already maxed out for 2014. So let’s look at those numbers:
How many $500 contributions each candidate received this year (total amount raised)?
Baker: 1,676 ($838,000)
Coakley: 1,225 ($612,500)
Grossman: 1,067 ($533,500)
Berwick: 1,003 ($501,500)
So clearly the mailing list for the second round of fundraising is biggest in the Baker camp and smallest in the Berwick camp.
To put this in perspective – let’s also look at cash on hand:
Grossman: $910K
Baker: $905K
Coakley: $528K
Berwick: $228K
Now, one could make the argument that the Grossman and Baker war chests are healthy enough right now, so the extra money wouldn’t be as beneficial as it would be for the Coakley and Berwick campaigns. I could even make the argument that the raise in the cap might be most beneficial to Berwick since he has the biggest hurdle of getting name recognition and he has the smallest chest, so any opportunity to raise more funds would be welcome in the Berwick camp.
I guess it comes down to future contributions – who has the ability to fund raise moving forward without the raise in the cap vs with the raise in the cap.
What we can certainly expect is a surge in contributions immediately if the cap is raised.
I’d be very interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this.
The new donation limits don’t come into effect until next year.
Unless I’m missing something, there are over 3,000 people who have maxed out on the Dem side versus ~1,700 for the GOP. So, that means that Berwick, say, should he win the nomination, could raise an extra $500k from his current donors and an additional $2.3 million from the other Dem big donors who haven’t given to him yet. That’s approaching $3 mil in potential funds. (Granted some people may have maxed out to multiple candidates, but I’m guessing that this doesn’t represent a large percentage.) Baker, on the other hand, would only be looking at an additional $840k.
I’d say that the benefit would be to the eventual Dem candidate, whoever he or she may be … IF it were going into effect this year … which it’s not … so, um …
Your mileage may vary.
But seriously, I’m not sure what we gain by raising the limit. Most people will still give less.
This is just a snap response, and maybe I’ll change my mind when I’ve thought about it more. But raising the limit, it seems to me, works against one of the more distinctive features of the Massachusetts political scene: namely, that it takes very little money here to have some access to candidates and to our elected officials. People from outside the state are routinely blown away by it, at least in my experience: here in Western Massachusetts, at least, you have the kind of access for a $20 contribution that in some states starts at three figures and goes north from there.
Higher contribution limits are more efficient, but they move us away from that kind of access, even as they raise the importance to a candidate of those potential $1000 donors and thus their potential influence. I’m not sure the gains are worth that. Unless the numbers affected are so marginal that it wouldn’t change the dynamic much; but in that case, the gains to be had from making the change are presumably equally marginal.
It’s not like a candidate will be unduly influenced by a $1000 contribution. I have hoped to an increase on at least the statewide offices for sometime now.
To repeat JimC’s question, what does it to for us?
…a piddling $500 at a time.
what does it do for us?
Great for the candidates who wish to raise more money. They can now raise twice as much from the .1% and spend more of their time listening to the concerns and shaping policy to appeal to a minute group of voters that is clearly not representative of the Commonwealth.
By raising the limit do we get fairer taxes, more affordable housing, single payer health insurance or even a cookie?
This encourages less contact with the 99.9%, and more robo calls, mailers and tv ads.
I would make this comment my signature if I could.
If you can get twice as much bang for buck with each ask, you can spend less time fundraising and more time doing things like engaging with non-donors.
But it implies the campaign will say “OK, we’ve raised enough,” and stop to focus on those other things.
Do you think that would happen?
…most candidates do nothing but complain about how much time they feel they have to spend raising money, so yes I think they could sooner and more easily hit a number they are comfortable with having banked.
comfortable with having banked is twice as much as everyone else then its difficult to ever reach that level of comfort.
If you’re goal is to have candidates spend less time fundraising, than legislation that imposes stricter limits, imposes a spending cap or provides government financing of campaigns might be a way of actually moving towards your stated goal instead of further away.
If it is not the candidates themselves who will approach the donor and ask us what it is we do for our living to glean which company we work for (be it a non-profit, start-up, Fortune 500 company or corporation), fundraiser events are staffed with campaign aides who chat for several minutes with us donors. Online donations indicate our employers, but it is campaign aides at the event who spend several minutes taking notes of how donors interests stand.
If donors love giving money to candidates, why not just tax them more? If a donor writes checks for gubernatorial, lieutenant gov., treasurer AND attorney general, may not his town and Commonwealth not just tax the organization he works for us so the money goes to public schools rather than to tacky silk-screened name shirts?
Of course, increased disclosure for Super PACS is a step forward, but the Citizens United decision provides a huge loophole for these types of disclosure laws. The donations can come from corporations (and other entities called C4s). With those types of organizations, it is not possible to know the identify of individuals who are involved.
For example, let’s say you happen to have an extra $20 million and want to purchase your very own Governor, and you want to be anonymous. Then you just move your money through an LLC or a C4, and nobody knows your name. It’s also easy for corporations to mask their identity. It’s called “dark money”.
This proposed legislation is still a reasonable idea. Weak tea is better than no tea.
I did not know the contribution limit has not changed for 20 years, in which case it is cool. I do not worry too much about its impact. In Western Mass we have some folks who will contribute the max, but a lot of people do it in increments, maybe reaching the $500 over time and usually only in election years. It may encourage the recipients to fund raise more often, which as Congress shows, can be a separate problem all together in terms of time spent.