I freely admit to having a double standard for Pete Buttigieg. I hold him to higher standards pertaining to fundraising than the ones I have for the other leading candidates. Here’s why.
Let’s begin with the rock Elizabeth Warren dropped in the debate pond, when she said:
So, the mayor just recently had a fundraiser that was held in a wine cave, full of crystals, and served $900-a-bottle wine. Think about who comes to that. He had promised that every fundraiser he would do would be open-door, but this one was closed-door. We made the decision many years ago that rich people in smoke-filled rooms would not pick the next president of the United States. Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States.
Mayor Pete’s response:
You know, according to Forbes magazine, I am literally the only person on this stage who is not a millionaire or a billionaire. . . . This is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass. If I pledge never to be in the company of a progressive Democratic donor, I couldn’t be up here. Senator, your net worth is 100 times mine. Now, supposing that you went home feeling the holiday spirit — I know this isn’t likely, but stay with me — and decided to go onto peteforamerica.com and gave the maximum allowable by law, $2,800, would that pollute my campaign because it came from a wealthy person? No, I would be glad to have that support. We need the support from everybody who is committed to helping us defeat Donald Trump. . . .
Mr. Buttigieg is engaging in a false equivalency. There is no doubt the other Democratic candidates on the stage could afford to write a $2,800 check to Pete’s campaign, but there are three money issues at play in the Democratic primary. They are not equivalent.
We have the issue of billionaires Steyer and Bloomberg, who have enough money to swamp the entire race. Steyer undercut the unique donor requirement by advertising for $1 contributions, Bloomberg will just run television ads around the debates.
The second issue is with folks who can afford to donate $2,800 to the campaign. It’s a significant amount of money, but then again it isn’t, as Ambassadonor Sondland benchmarked the price of a nice European posting at $1 million.
This brings us to the third group. The folks who go beyond the $2,800 maximum, either by hitting up their wealthy friends for $2,800 and filling a room or a wine cave with those folks. They also donate to PACs, inaugural committees, or any of the other routes to bypass the federal limits.
That’s why the wine cave is more significant than Elizabeth Warren’s net worth, and why a $2,800 donation from Elizabeth Warren isn’t in the same league as the wine cave. Seems that the wine cave owners are pretty good and getting pro quo for the quid they raise, including a plum ambassador posting in Austria. According to the Daily Beast:
In 1997, one year after donating hundreds of thousands to Democrats seeking reelection, Kathryn Hall was nominated and confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to Austria, a position for which she had been angling for close to a year.
“Kathryn had begun talking to people in Washington—especially our close friend, then-Senate leader Tom Daschle—about the possibility of being appointed to an ambassador position,” the couple recount in their book A Perfect Score: The Art, Soul, and Business of a 21st-Century Winery, which documents their rise from mere real estate and financial tycoons to esteemed vintners. Among her qualifications: she had lived overseas, spoke German, and “enjoyed foreign affairs.”
“An ambassadorship isn’t something you apply for,” the Halls write. “You seek out people who are involved in the administration and let them know that you would be interested. Then you try to push that effort along any way you can.”
The posh posting isn’t the only reward for big money donors. There are big donors who don’t want a posh posting abroad, but want to influence public policy in a new administration. Consider someone like billionaire hedge fund manager John Petry. He’s one of the original founders of Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), which Diane Ravitch describes as “the organization of hedge fund managers that funds charter supporters across the nation.” Petry and his friends were also behind a boatload of out-of-state money dedicated to the Massachusetts charter school ballot question in 2016., and flooded Colorado with donations to influence their elections.
When Mayor Pete was criticized for his lack of fundraising transparency, he released a list of his bundlers. Oops. He forgot to list 20 of his top fundraisers, including John Petry. That’s not all. Vice reports that Mayor Pete has been holding private fundraisers with a number of prominent charter school supporters.
Are John Petry and the charter school supporters just a group of altruistic donors, or is there a reason why they are gathering and bundling for Buttigieg? Who knows? Buttigieg doesn’t have a record on state and federal issues, so he doesn’t have a track record on issues that would concern Democratic primary voters. Michael Bennet and Cory Booker are off the stage, in part because their history of supporting school privatization doesn’t play well with a Democratic primary electorate.
That’s why there is a double standard. That’s why it is important to pay more careful attention to Buttigieg’s donors. We know where Bernie and Elizabeth stand. Pete? Not so much. That’s why we need to pay attention to who he stands with.
It’s not even a double standard.
I don’t want the same-old bobbing and weaving about campaign finance. I’m tired of the empty and well-rehearsed gotcha-responses.
With both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, what you see is what you get. Each has been exceedingly transparent about their backgrounds, their donors, their records, their taxes, and so on.
Mr. Buttigieg, not so much.
I’m particularly put off by his relationship to the charter school industry and his apparent eagerness to hide that relationship.
Bernie Sanders broke the mold in 2016 and showed that the conventional wisdom about fundraising was wrong. Sanders and Warren are showing in 2019 that we don’t need to go back.
If you’re someone who thinks large political donations and political influence are unrelated, please go read . . . literally anything. It’s a friendlier type of corruption that we’ve accepted for too long.
Peter has no issue with that system, which says a lot about him (and every other candidate doing this type of fundraising). His transparency problems don’t need a double standard. And his smugness about it is beyond offputting.
Warren used to do major donor fundraisers and now does not, and has explained why. Pete and the press are trying to attack her over some perceived hypocrisy. But, she admits she changed her position. What Pete is doing with that attacks is like opposing marriage equality and saying that’s ok by pointing Barack Obama’s earlier opposition to marriage equality.
Pete’s connection with charter school backers is certainly concerning, but there are reports that the campaign is more directly offering access and influence. What is he promising the charter school bundlers?
Every candidate has different strategies and different strengths for fundraising. As long as it’s legal…
Gordon Sondland donated $1M to Trump’s inauguration committee and was rewarded with an Ambassadorship.
It’s legal, so it’s all good in your book?
I second the thread starter and also want to point out that many here have come around on this issue which was a point of contention between Clinton and Sanders supporters in 2016. Neither Sanders nor Warren is unilaterally disarming. This map that Sanders has the most unique donors across all 50 states followed closely by Warren.
The bulk of Pete’s money comes from the Chicago business establishment (which has strong ties to Notre Dame, one of whom was Steve Patton who suppressed the Laquan MacDonald tape), health care executives, and Big Tech.
Warren is making breaking up Big Tech a centerpiece of her campaign. It’s no accident the two candidates still championing Medicare for All have taken zero dollars from insurance companies while the candidate who bragged to my face in 2018 that he’d stack the courts and senate to get MFA done is now running against it after an influx of insurance cash flowed to his campaign.
If we want to avoid selecting a candidate of the coastal elites who exclusively relies on walled off fundraisers with one percenters in wine caves while most of our voters can’t even afford a bourbon shed or beer porch, than we should nominate Sanders or Warren. Both of whom have demonstrated appeal from ordinary voters across all 50 states and an ability to be competitive with Trump via small donors.
I prefer we don’t use ambassadorships as rewards.
“I prefer we don’t use ambassadorships as rewards..” I hereby promise never to use an ambassadorship as a reward, so help me. Anyone else with me on this?
I refuse to accept an ambassadorship for the many $50 donations I have made.
I think the laws are bad and just adhering to legality is bad as well. We should demand better, and we can achieve better, without “disarming” but only if we follow the leadership of two of the candidates running.
Speaking of double standards with regards to fundraising…howabout the outrage at BMG regarding Lori Trahan. Now that’s a double standard!
(why don’t you create some content yourself)
I have done more than my share of posts on money in politics here, and they get no traction. I’ve reached the conclusion that this is not an important subject around here. I understand people feeling more passionate about climate change or health care than political reform–I am as well. But I’ve reached the conclusion that without FIRST addressing money and other political reform issues, we won’t adequately address the other issues. But again, that is a sentiment I don’t think readers (and other posters) at BMG really care about.
So to your point: what’s the use? No one seems to care.
I just now reviewed the diaries you cited. Several of those got multiple recommendations and several provoked at least few (big) screenloads of exchanges in comments. That’s about as much “traction” as any post on any political blog gets.
What’s your beef?
By “traction” I mean anyone else taking enough interest in this subject to also write about their perspective on the issue…much like health car or climate change.
I see at least as much discussion of campaign finance reform here as any other topic. Several of our participants opine about it quite frequently and passionately.
Several of us certainly share your view of Ms. Trahan’s ethical issues.
Can you clarify what you’re saying?
The outrage I expressed and feel towards Ms. Trahan is a result of clear violations of ethics and law that are well-documented in the various threads where I’ve expressed that outrage. Ms. Trahan is explicitly and formally accused of various violations, together with her husband and campaign committee.
My complaint about Mr. Buttigieg is about similar but legal corruption.
I see no inconsistency or double standard, especially with regard to Ms. Trahan.
I therefore don’t understand your comment.
Now, now, not every comment is about you. My point is, in general BMG posters/commenters (same people?) don’t care about money in politics as a real issue. As I replied to Charlie above, I’ve tried to make it a point of conversation here and I seem to be the only one writing posts about the general problem of money in politics.
I certainly don’t see this post as denouncing the influence of money in politics. Instead, like so many other things in politics, the issue is used as a club to whack an opposing candidate and a way to condemn an interest group Pablo (understandably) doesn’t like.
I have no problem using this issue to club a candidate. But I wish it were viewed as a stand alone issue as well. One that is at the heart of our broken political system and MUST be addressed, so that the special interests–who are buying their way into obstructing climate change and health care reforms–are stopped. But no one seems to treat it that way. Instead it is only brought up when it is politically convenient to use against a political opponent.
And let’s not forget, in the last week or so, Trahan’s problems (or rather the slow drip of an inevitable fine and public rebuking) only got worse.
@Not just you:
That’s not my point. My point is that there was a lengthy discussion of Ms. Trahan’s campaign finance issues, and she had just one defender in that discussion. This entire thread is about the appearance of corruption in a primary campaign for the president. So both this and the other thread are highly critical of the appearance of corrupt campaign funding among current candidates. No double standard.
Furthermore, the issue with charter schools here is the observation of how a leading charter school proponent constantly strives to hide their identity and agenda when funding candidates. That’s again consistent opposition to corrupt campaign financing.
You profess to view our current system of campaign finance as a corrupting influence on candidates. Your comment here attacks BMG for expressing that view, on a thread that explicitly promotes the view you profess to agree with.
Whatever axe you are here to grind seems unrelated to campaign finance or BMG.
In terms me having an axe to grind, I very much feel that the MA progressive establishment talks the talk on this issue, but could care less about walking the walk with regards to ending the corrupt influence of money in politics.
Perfect example of that was our last Democratic Primary race for Gov. Sure everyone in general gave speeches bemoaning money in politics or needing to “change the conversation” in health care or eliminate change–to stop listening to the lobbyist and listen to the people. But no one ever advocated a solution. I remember asking Jay Gonzalez: How can we change the conversation if we don’t change the way we fund elections? Why wasn’t he talking about THAT, if he really wanted to change the conversation? (Oh, he said, I have that issue on my website…even though he didn’t have it as part of his stump speech, which really tells people of his priorities.)
I agree that walking the walk is certainly an issue.
It’s a genuine catch-22, so much so that it reminds me of the SALT negotiations with the former Soviet Union. Both sides said they wanted to reduce their respective nuclear arsenal, and neither was willing to go first. My recollection is that this was the context for Mr. Reagan’s now-famous “Trust, but verify” quip.
I’ve been hearing Democrats clamor for and propose “Campaign finance reform” my entire life. The first attempt that I remember is the $1 check-off on the federal 1040. My recollection, again, is that the GOP ignored it from the beginning. Democrats would not have been able to win ANY subsequent elections if we had insisted on limiting ourselves.
I haven’t yet heard any viable alternatives for how to break the cycle. The situation was made dramatically worse by the infamous Citizens United decision. Sadly, the current proposals to undo that have their own fatal flaws.
This is all a long-winded way of saying that I agree with you in principle, and I still await a realistic way of getting there in practice.
Warren and Sanders both show you can reject corporate money and be competitive in a major party primary. Arguably Trump showed that you can be outspent 2-1 in corporate dollars and still win an election if you mobilize the right people in the right states. Bloomberg has bought 5% and Steyer bought his debate slot, but it is very unlikely either of them are gonna win this thing.
Warren and Sanders both show that THEY can reject certain sources and be competitive. Not everybody has that luxury.
Yes, and those others are selling time and access, and perhaps influence with their fundraising. They should absolutely be judged for that activity.
Some raise small donations; others large ones – meh.
Meh? Really?
Do you really think 10 donors at $1 M each are the same as 1,000,000 donors at $10 each?
I beg to disagree with you.
I’m VERY confident that each of those 10 big donors has FAR greater influence than any of those million small donors. I think trying get 100,000 small donors to agree on anything is nearly impossible, yet that’s what it takes to have the same influence as one of the big donors.
I think the candidate with the 10 big donors is going to do what those 10 donors demand.
First, we do have legal limits for individual contributions, and I have long thought that ONLY individuals (as opposed to PACs) should be allowed to contribute to a campaign.
Second, I prefer to judge merits rather than motives. For example, if a representative votes for massive subsidies and tax breaks to the fossil fuel industries, does it really matter whether it’s because the industry bankrolled a campaign or because the representative genuinely believes that will create jobs and keep the economy humming? Personally, I’ll complain a lot more loudly about the environmental impact and how unfair it is that certain industries are getting favorable treatment than I will about the money. It’s a bad vote either way and has the same effect.
Absolutely it matters. That is how those industries buy elections. A warchest of corporate money lets that representative win and then the industry gets their way. If that true believer wins based on their ideology and convincing voters and small donors, that is different. Also, it rarely happens. Corporate-aligned reps almost always get lots of corporate cash. Various industries OWN many of our representatives, including the entire GOP, except maybe for a few people like Amash.
I’ll add the influx of insurance dollars had a direct impact on Mayor Pete going from a diehard progressive candidate who told me to my face he would stack the courts if he had to to pass MFA to becoming the largest recipient of Big Tech, Big Pharma, and health insurance dollars in the race. Biden at least was always for a public option, Pete was for Medicare for All until his donors were against it.
Well, I actually don’t recall his being for full on MFA that banned private insurers, but again in this example I would argue against the merits of his current position and worry less about why he holds it.
Nobody is for an MFA that bans private insurers. I think we have to be very careful about spreading right wing talking points in our own primary. Both the Warren and Sanders plans have multi year phase ins that will seamlessly transition people from private to public health care plans.
The big difference is a public option is an opt in design, Warren/Sanders is opt out. Just like my parents have Tufts Medicare Advantage now and Canadians can opt for supplemental or concierge coverage on top of their Medicare benefit, so can any American under the Warren/Sanders plan. In the short run the public option is less disruptive which is why it’s polling better now, but in the long run it’s less effective since costs will not go down and the insured rate will not up if you continue to make having health care optional.
I think this is the debate we ought to be having, not the lies that insurance backed Democrats are spreading about taking people’s coverage away. Pete gave a very detailed analysis like the one above during his Concord appearance weighing both approaches and saying it would be up to Congress and the grassroots to fight for it. Now he’s saying he won’t fight for MFA, only a watered down public option. Now he’s spreading insurance industry talking points against MFA. Biden’s been a shill for the insurance and credit card companies his entire career, he’s wrong, but at least he’s been consistent in his beliefs. Pete clearly changed his tune when the wine caves started to effect his judgment.
@Legal limits for individual contributions:
You’ve been advancing an argument for weeks now that a clear violation of those limits was “trivial” and readily addressed by a “tweak” in the campaign finance laws. I’ve shown how easy it is for large amounts of illegal campaign contributions to flow through “business” accounts of a cooperative spouse, and you dismissed those.
Your attempt to have it both ways really seems to mean that you don’t support actual campaign finance limits at all. You said that more clearly in your second paragraph.
In answer to the perhaps rhetorical question of your second paragraph — “… does it really matter whether it’s because the industry bankrolled a campaign or because the representative genuinely believes …” — yes indeed, it DOES matter. Enormously.
You seem to be arguing that a bought vote is indistinguishable from rational vote. That is an argument in favor of explicit venal corruption.
I absolutely think individual limits are appropriate. I’ve been arguing the interpretation and the necessity of considering a spouse’s jointly held finances in the same manner since I do not think money is going to as a practical matter increase the natural influence a spouse already has on an elected official.
It’s not a luxury-it’s a strategy and one that works. Sure Warren and Sanders had name recognition before they ran, but that strategy also worked for a 26 year old waitress in the Bronx who unseated an incumbent who raked in corporate cash. Just as we will not end our addiction to fossil fuels until we stop investing in fossil fuels, we will not end our addiction to corporate financed elections without turning off the spigot.
It’s a strategy that works for some, and I’m not going to ask anyone to give up legal sources. Take my candidate Joe Biden. He is absolutely qualified to be President yet I confess he’s not the type who activists go ga-ga over and light up the internet with small donations (though I believe he has mentioned that his average contribution does rival the others in terms of smallness).
Biden is bad at both grassroots and corporate fundraising. The latter is excited about Buttigieg while the former likes Warren and Sanders. I think that demonstrates his major weakness in a general election against Trump. Also he’s the only candidate left in the primary relying on a Super PAC after vowing not to use one. I still agree he’s the frontrunner and strongest candidate against Trump according to polls, but his anemic fundraising and debate performances give this observer a lot of pause.
I reject the framing that grassroots donors are rejecting experience for excitement. Using that logic, Beto should have had a much better race. I think voters are looking at the issues they care about and where the Democratic candidates stand and are finding Sanders and Warren aligned with their values while Biden has been on the wrong side of many issues throughout his career. His campaign operatives consistently belittle that base as “Twitter and not real life”. It’s really not a recipe for success if he is the nominee.