Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (2856)	3/22/2002 2:50:17 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

How Enron cleaned up American politics Political reformers hope the collapse of Enron may have tainted US campaign financing so badly that it helps curtail the practice, writes Mark Tran The Guardian Friday March 22, 2002 Although few positive things came out of the Enron scandal, the collapse of the US energy giant has played a key role in the breakthrough on campaign finance reform. Enron poured money into the coffers of the Republican party - sprinkling some cash for the Democrats as well - and its ignominious fall gave a vital boost to those who have campaigned long and hard to clean up American politics. Cash is king in US politics, and American politicians spend huge amounts of time and effort raising money to run for or retain office. Office holders will openly boast about their war chests in order to frighten off potential challengers. It does not always follow that those with the most cash end up in office, but it certainly can help. Michael Huffington, the son of a rich Texas oilman, came close to defeating the popular Democrat, Dianne Feinstein, for a senate seat in California in 1994 after spending nearly $30m (£21m) of his own money. He lost by just two points. But more often than not, money talks. Just look at Michael Bloomberg, who spent wads of money on his way to getting elected as the mayor of New York, ditto for Jon Corzine, who used a fortune accumulated as a partner at Goldman Sachs to win a senate seat in New Jersey. The Centre for Responsive Politics, an invaluable source of facts and figures on money and American politics, calculated that money spent by candidates in the 2000 congressional and presidential elections soared to $3bn from $2.2bn in 1996 and $1.8bn in 1992. A large chunk of that financing comes in the form of "soft money" - unlimited contributions to the national political parties for "party-building" activities. Now, thanks to the Shays-Meehan bill approved in the House and the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate, America has moved closer to choking off soft money. It's not a done deal yet though. President George Bush will probably sign the bill into law to wipe off the taint from Enron, but its opponents, led by Republican senator Mitch O'Connell of Kentucky, plan a legal challenge led by a team including Kenneth Star, the infamous prosecutor who led the Monica Lewinsky investigation. That battle is set to head all the way to the supreme court. But if the bill succeeds, the effort to ban soft money will have a big impact. After all, the Democratic and Republican parties raised nearly $500m dollars in soft money for the 2000 elections. Because it may be given in unlimited amounts of $100,000, $250,000, or more, soft money allows corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to wield tremendous influence that will now be curbed. That still leaves hard money, the cash that goes directly to candidates. Under the new rules, individuals will be able to give $2,000 to a candidate, rather than $1,000. Likewise, the maximum aggregate amount an individual donor can give to all candidates and party committees will go up from the current $25,000 per year to $95,000 per two-year election cycle. The super-donors will become extinct, but a new class of mid-sized donors is expected to emerge. The changes will benefit the Republicans, as they are masters at hard money fundraising thanks to a vast network of small to mid-sized donors. The Republicans' mailing list produces millions of dollars every year. That was why soft money assumed such importance for the Democrats, as it gave them a way to fight back in the fundraising stakes. Luckily for the Democrats, they have a chairman, Terry McAuliffe, who is supposed to be the most prolific fundraiser in Democratic history. With soft money on its way out, the big donors can be expected to shift their attention to the state level, where there is less scrutiny of their activities. Some states have no limits at all on contributions to state committees, and many have much looser rules on who can donate - companies and unions can, for example. All that should not detract from the fact that advocates of campaign finance reform have won a famous victory - the first major change to campaign finance since the Watergate scandal. It just took another scandal to help things along. guardian.co.uk