WHO’S BUYING CAMPAIGN FINANCE ‘REFORM’? · PDF fileKohlberg,” Money &...

AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION FOUNDATIONELECTION LAW ENFORCEMENT PROJECT

WHO’S BUYINGCAMPAIGN FINANCE ‘REFORM’?

Prepared by Sullivan & Mitchell P.L.L.C.For the American Conservative Union Foundation

© 2001 All Rights ReservedThe entire report is available online at www.conservative.org.

35

Who’s Buying Campaign Finance Reform?

Notes/Bibliography

O O O

Below is a list of source materials we used for this report. This is just a sampling ofthe information available from and about these organizations. Further, due to the sheersize of the campaign finance reform network of organizations, this is by no means anall-inclusive list of groups involved in the effort.

This is just the beginning.

Organizations Working on Campaign Finance Reform:

Arizonans for Clean Elections3336 N. 32nd Street, Suite 106Phoenix, AZ 85018(602) 840-6633

§ 1998 Campaign Finance Disclosure Reports filed with the Arizona Secretary of State:

--January 31 Report--June 30 Report--Pre-Primary Election Report--Post-Primary Election Report--Pre-General Election Report--Post-Primary Election Report

§ Balazs, Diana. “Mechanic Savoring Newfound Freedom,” The Arizona Republic, February 4, 2001;p. B01.

§ Ivins, Molly. “Arizona Takes a Shot at Campaign Finance Reform,” Chicago Sun-Times, October11, 1998.

Brennan Center (William J. Brennan Jr. Center for Justice)161 Avenue of the Americas, 5th FloorNew York NY 10013(212) 998-6730www.brennancenter.org

§ 1999 Form 990 Tax Return


§ GuideStar report (www.guidestar.org)


36

Campaign for America/Jerome KohlbergAddress as of July 1998:50 F Street, NW, Suite 1198Washington, DC 20001(202) 628-0610

§ Doyle, Kenneth P. “FEC Drops Case Involving Reform Group Founded by Financier JeromeKohlberg,” Money & Politics Report, Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.; March 22, 2001.

§ Babcock, Charles R.. “Parties Rack Up 6-Figure Gifts of ‘Soft Money’,” The Washington Post,September 28, 1992; p.A 15.

§ “Victory Fund Members,” The Washington Post, July 19, 1998; p.A21.

§ Marcus, Ruth. “Campaign Finance Ads Target GOP,” The Washington Post, October 16, 1997; p.A04..

§ Dewar, Helen. “Road Testing Campaign Finance Bill,” The Washington Post, March 31, 1997; p.A01.

§ Anderson, Jack and Michael Binstein. “PAC-Busting Afoot,” The Washington Post, June 22, 1995;p. S14.

§ Wertheimer, Fred. “Our Leaders Preach Values But Still Follow the Money,” The Washington Post,December 24, 1995; p. C01.

§ Full-page ad in New York Times paid for by Campaign for America, July 22, 1998; p. A13.

§ Campaign and committee contribution records for Jerome Kohlberg are available at the FEC atwww.fec.gov.

Campaign for America’s Future1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 205Washington, DC 20036Phone: 202-955-5665www.ourfuture.org

§ StraightTalk 2000: A Handbook for Activists, available on the organization’s website. See “SectionIII: Strengthening Democracy, Renewing Community,” pp. 115-124.

Center for Responsive Politics1101 14th Street, NW, Suite 1030Washington, DC 20005-5635(202) 857-0044www.opensecrets.org





Notes/Bibliography

37

Center for Public Integrity910 17th St., NW, 7th FloorWashington, DC 20006(202) 466-1300www.publicintegrity.org



Common Cause/Common Cause Education Fund1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600Washington, DC 20036(202) 833-1200www.commoncause.org

§ See www.commoncause.org/about/today.htm for information about Common Cause and itsactivities.

§ Common Cause Education Fund non-profit ruling year is 2000. Tax forms are unavailable as ofMarch 2001.

Democracy 21/Democracy 21 Education Fund1825 I Street, NWWashington, DC 20006(202) 429-2008



League of Women Voters/League of Women Voters Education Fund1730 M Street, NW, Suite 1000Washington, DC 20036202-429-1965www.lwv.org

§ See http://www.lwv.org/takeaction/107_2001_cfr.html for the League’s position on campaignfinance reform.




38

Public Campaign1320 19th Street, NW, Suite M-1Washington, DC 20036(202) 293-0222www.publiccampaign.org

§ 1999 Form 990 Tax Return for Public Campaign Action Fund

§ 1999 Form 990 Tax Return for Public Campaign

§ 1998 Form 990 Tax Return for PubliCampaign aka Public Campaign


Public Citizen/Public Citizen Foundation1600 20th Street, NWWashington, DC 20009(202) 588-1000www.citizen.org

§ 1999 Form 990 Tax Return for Public Citizen, Inc.

§ 1999 Form 990 Tax Return for Public Citizen Foundation, Inc.


§ 1998 Form 990 Tax Return for Public Citizen Foundation, Inc.


§ 1997 Form 990 Tax Return for Public Citizen, Foundation, Inc.

(all tax returns available on the organization’s website)

U.S. Public Interest Research Group218 D Street, SEWashington, DC 20003-1900(202) 546-9707www.pirg.org

Notes/Bibliography

39

Organizations Providing Funding for Campaign Finance Reform:

Carnegie Corporation of New York437 Madison AvenueNew York, NY 10022(212) 371-3200www.carnegie.org

§ 1999 Annual Report




§ Grants list on website is searchable.

Florence and John Schumann Foundation33 Park StreetMontclair, NJ 07042(973) 783-6660

§ 1995-96 Annual Report

§ 1998 Form 990-PF Tax Return

Ford Foundation320 East 43rd StreetNew York, NY 10017(212) 573-5000www.fordfound.org

§ Various reports and searchable grants list are available on website.

Joyce FoundationThree First National Plaza70 West Madison Street, Suite 2750Chicago, IL 60602(312) 782-2464www.joycefdn.org





40

Kirsch Foundation/Steven Kirsch60 South Market Street, Suite 1000San Jose, CA 95113-2336(408) 278-2278www.kirschfoundation.org


§ Campaign and committee contribution records for Steven Kirsch are available at the FEC atwww.fec.gov.

Open Society Institute/George Soros400 West 59th StreetNew York, NY 10019(212) 548-0600www.soros.org


§ 1998 Form 990-PF Tax Return



§ Valentine, Paul W. “For Baltimore, Uncommon Gift From Unorthodox Source,” The WashingtonPost, November 17, 1997; p. A01.

§ See also disclosure reports for Arizonans for Clean Elections (above).

§ See also disclosure reports for the Arizona committee, The People Have Spoken (below).

Peace Development Fund44 N Prospect, PO Box 1280Amherst, MA 01004(413) 256-8306www.peacefund.org




§ Conconi, Chuck. “Concerned about next month’s House vote on construction moneys,” TheWashington Post, June 13, 1983; p. C3.

Notes/Bibliography

41

Pew Trusts2005 Market Street, Suite 1700Philadelphia, PA 19103-7017(215) 575-9050www.pewtrusts.org



Proteus Fund264 N. Pleasant Street, 2nd FloorAmherst, MA 01002(413) 256-0349www.funder.org/proteus

§ Campaign and committee contribution records for Proteus board members are available at theFEC at www.fec.gov.


Other Information:

The People Have Spoken—House Bill 2518The People Have Spoken—SB 1373

(Two 1998 Arizona ballot measure committees supporting liberalization of Arizona’s drug laws)PO Box 34506Phoenix, AZ 85067(602) 222-6639

§ 1998 Campaign Finance Disclosure Reports filed with the Arizona Secretary of State:

--January 31 Report--June 30 Report--Pre-Primary Election Report--Post-Primary Election Report--Pre-General Election Report--Post-Primary Election Report

Congress—legislation, statements, etc.

Information about campaign finance legislation in the Congress can be found online athttp://thomas.loc.gov/.


42

Miscellaneous Media Articles

§ Balz, Dan. “A Blessing Disguised as McCain?” The Washington Post, August 2, 2000; p. A20.

§ “McCain Wants Campaign Finance Vote at Start of New Congress,” The Associated Press,December 15, 2000.

§ Mintz, John. “The Interest Groups, Liberals Mobilize Against Bush, GOP,” The Washington Post,November 3, 2000; p. A22.

§ Mann, Judy. “Mobilizing the Family Planning Vote,” The Washington Post, October 11, 2000; p.C13.

Executive Summary

O O O

• The campaign finance reform ‘campaign’ is controlled and financed by liberalDemocrats: wealthy soft money donors to the Democratic party andcandidates, liberal foundations and Democratic operatives.

• The campaign finance reform network is a massive national network of liberalorganizations, projects and activities that is extremely well funded.

• Since 1996, the campaign finance reform ‘campaign’ has raised and spentmore than $73 million: $67.3 million by national organizations and at least$6 million at the state and local level.

• Funding the campaign finance reform campaign are a core group of liberalfoundations who also finance other ultra-liberal organizations and causes, suchas: abortion rights, anti-business/anti-corporate environmentalism, gay andlesbian rights, drug legalization, and gun control, among others.

• Other primary sources of funds for the campaign finance movement arewealthy individuals who are also major donors to the Democratic party andcandidates, such as: George Soros, Steven T. Kirsch, and Jerome Kohlberg.

• Since 1997, George Soros has provided $4.7 million to the campaign finance‘reform’ movement.

• In 1998, Soros funneled more than $600,000 to Arizonans for Clean Elections(ACE), which created public financing for Arizona state candidates:• Soros accounted for more than 71% of the funds to ACE.• Less than $600 was received in donations of $25.00 or less.• 95% of the funding for ACE came in donations in excess of $1,000.• ACE Treasurer Gary Tredway turned out to be a Vietnam War protestor

wanted for felony convictions for more than thirty years – and whoreceived one of former President Clinton’s last minute pardons.

• In 1999, George Soros and seven wealthy friends created their own politicalcommittee, Campaign for a Progressive Future, which funded almost $2million of political activities in 2000, including $200,000 to the Million MomPAC.

• Steven T. Kirsch, one of the donors to Campaign for a Progressive Future,contributed $500,000 to campaign finance ‘reform’ groups in 2000.

• Kirsch personally spent $1.8 million in independent expenditures against thepresidential candidacy of George W. Bush in 2000

• Jerome Kohlberg donated $100,000 to Campaign for America to buy televisionads saying, “Let’s get the $100,000 checks out of politics.”

• Kohlberg spent more than $400,000 of his own money campaigning against theelection of Republican Jim Bunning to the U.S. Senate from Kentucky in 1998.

• Sen. John McCain has received several thousand dollars in campaigncontributions from these same wealthy donors, one of only three Republicancandidates to receive support from these Democratic partisans in recent years.The other two GOP candidates are Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) and formerRep. Rick Lazio from New York.

• Since 1996, the Joyce Foundation has provided more than $1.16 million ingrants to influence media coverage of campaign finance reform, including:

• $212,141 to National Public Radio;• $41,500 to Washington Week in Review (PBS);• $30,000 to Mother Jones to investigate contributions to House GOP

freshmen in 1995;• $200,000 to train editors and journalists on covering the issue of

campaign finance.

Conclusion:

Mainstream Americans, moderates and conservatives alike, should be verywary of the campaign finance reform ‘campaign’.

It is an ideological battle being waged by people with a decidedly liberalpublic policy agenda, who view changing the campaign finance rules as a means toaccomplish their liberal policy objectives.

The entire report, Who’s Buying Campaign Finance Reform, is available online atwww.conservative.org or by contacting:

ACU Foundation1007 Cameron StreetAlexandria, VA 22314(703) 836-8602 / (703) 863-8606 ([email protected]

Cleta Mitchell, Esq.Sullivan & Mitchell, P.L.L.C.1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W. #330Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 861-5900

[email protected]

Table 1: Major Campaign Finance Groups and Their Common Funding Sources

Funders:Carnegie

Foundation

Florence &John

SchumannFoundation

FordFoundation

JoyceFoundation

Open SocietyInstitute

(George Soros)

Pew CharitableTrusts

CFR Groups:

BrennanCenter

$550,0001996-1999

$425,0001995-1998

$1,000,0001999

$742,5001996-1999

$700,0001998-2000

Center forPublic

Integrity

$1,048,3001995-2000

$1,000,0001995-1996

$598,4021996-2000

$616,0001997 & 2000

Center forResponsive

Politics

$1,150,0001992-2000

$900,0001995-1998

$1,000,0002000

$650,0001997-1999

$1,085,0001996-1998

CommonCause

EducationFund (created

in 2000)

$125,0002000

Democracy 21 $175,0001999-2000

$100,0001998

$255,0001998-1999

$235,0001998-2000

League ofWomen Voters

$150,0001999

$1,000,0001999

$1,356,000 over 3yrs to various local

chapters

$132,2502000

$1,650,0001996-1997

NationalPublic Radio(for coverage

of CFR)

$25,0001998

$86,0001995-1996

$212,1411996-1997

(NPR received$3,375,000 from Pew

between 1995 and 1999for coverage of arts,culture, religion andundefined 'critical

issues')

PublicCampaign

$50,0001999-2000

$5,000,000(4 year grant)

$3,100,0001997-2000

Public Citizen $50,0001997&2000

$85,0001997-1999

Table 2: Other Organizations Supported by the Funders of Campaign Finance Reform

CarnegieFoundation

Florence & JohnSchumannFoundation

Ford Foundation Joyce FoundationOpen Society

Institute(George Soros)


• Center on Budget &Policy Priorities

• People for theAmerican Way

• National Public Radio• Tides Foundation

• Tides Foundation• Earth Action Network• NPR (non-CFR)

• NOW Legal Defense &Education Fund

• ACLU Foundation• AFL-CIO (Working for

America Institute &Center for WorkingCapital)

• NPR & PRI (non-CFR)• People for the

American Way• NAACP Legal

Defense & EducationFund

• ProChoice ResourceCenter

• Feminist MajorityFoundation

• Center on Budget andPolicy Priorities

• Tides Foundation

• Natural ResourcesDefense Council

• NAACP LegalDefense & EducationFund


• Sierra ClubFoundation

• EnvironmentalDefense Fund

• Consumer Federationof America


• Abortion AccessProject

• ACLU Foundation• Consumer Federation

of America• Feminist Majority

Foundation• Ms. Foundation• NAACP Legal



• National AbortionRights Action LeagueFoundation


• Public CitizenFoundation


• Planned Parenthood(locally in PA andnationwide)



• Earthjustice LegalDefense Fund

• NPR (non-CFR)• Tides Foundation

AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION FOUNDATIONELECTION LAW ENFORCEMENT PROJECT

WHO’S BUYINGCAMPAIGN FINANCE ‘REFORM’?

Prepared by Sullivan & Mitchell P.L.L.C.For the American Conservative Union Foundation

© 2001 All Rights ReservedThis report is available online at www.conservative.org.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

O O O

Preface vDavid Keene, ChairmanAmerican Conservative Union Foundation

Introduction viiCleta Mitchell, Esq.Sullivan & Mitchell P.L.L.C.Counsel, Election Law Enforcement Project

Executive Summary ix

Chapter 1: 1Who Are These People? A Guide to the Campaign Finance Reform Network

Chapter 2: 7There’s Too Much Money in Campaign Finance Reform…

Chapter 3: 9Where Do the Campaign Finance Reformers Get Their Money and What DoThese Speech Police Really Believe?

Chapter 4: 13Money and More Money for Campaign Finance Reform

Chapter 5: 21A Case Study in Hypocrisy: Arizona’s ‘Clean Elections’ Campaign

Chapter 6: 25The Media Slices Its Share of the Campaign Finance Money Pie

Chapter 7: 27OK, Fine, Let George Soros Replace the DNC

Conclusion 31

Epilogue 33Published March 2001

v

Preface

O O O

The American Conservative Union (ACU) commissioned this report, Who’sBuying Campaign Finance Reform? to shed light on where the anti-First Amendment,campaign ‘reform’ movement gets its money and what its leaders, followers andfunders really want for America. What we present here are some facts: thecampaign finance reform ‘campaign’ is controlled and financed by liberalfoundations and wealthy donors to the Democratic Party and Democraticcandidates, with a decidedly liberal public policy agenda on substantive issues.

The goal of the campaign finance ‘reformers’ is to accomplish policyobjectives by changing the campaign finance laws. Their sources of fundingunderscore their core political beliefs… beliefs on a wide range of issues that are notshared by mainstream Americans.

Twenty-five years ago, ACU was an original plaintiff challenging the 1974amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. That lawsuit resulted in theU.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. Buckley laid down animportant constitutional marker, which limits the role of government in regulatingthe political speech, association and lobbying rights of citizens.

Since that decision of the Supreme Court, the campaign finance reformmovement has spent more than two decades waging a broadside assault against theprinciples of Buckley and the First Amendment.

The ongoing efforts for ‘campaign finance reform’ are and have been fortwenty-five years well organized, well financed and intentionally aimed at rewritingthe campaign rules to benefit ultra-liberal causes.

ACU hopes this report will serve as a wake-up call to Congress, the mediaand citizens across the nation. Those who want to rewrite the nation’s campaignfinance rules want to achieve objectives on public policy issues that are anathema tomainstream Americans.

If you don’t believe it, you don’t know who’s buying campaign financereform.

David A. Keene, ChairmanAmerican Conservative Union

vii

Introduction

O O O

Someone once said, “Baseball is Life. The rest is details.”

So, it should come as no surprise that for those of us who are interested inimportant things besides politics – like baseball – we can normally find a baseballanalogy to describe anything. Campaign finance reform is no exception.

Here’s a question for you: What do the height of the pitcher’s mound in majorleague baseball and campaign finance reform have in common?

In 1968, St. Louis Cardinals’ pitcher Bob Gibson threw 13 shutouts and had a1.12 earned-run average. Carl Yastrzemski won a major league batting championshipat .301 and pitcher Denny McLain won 31 games. Because of the seeming advantageof the pitchers over hitters, baseball’s rulesmakers in 1969 reduced the height of thepitcher's mound from fifteen inches to ten and provided an enforcement mechanismof mandatory regular measuring of the mound to make certain that it actuallystayed at ten inches. Today homerun balls are flying out of ballparks and battingaverages are soaring. The rule change worked well and no one now argues thatpitchers have the advantage over hitters.

The campaign finance regulations are the rules of engagement for politics andpoliticians—the moral equivalent of the height of the pitcher’s mound in baseball.

And whether it is in baseball or politics, the rules affect the outcome of thegame.

Campaign finance reformers say that the golden rule of politics is ‘he who hasthe gold makes the rules’. That’s only partially true. The real golden rule of politicsis: He who makes the rules wins the gold.

This study describes who the campaign finance reformers are, where they gettheir money and what their supporters want to see accomplished by America’spoliticians. Why do certain people in this country want the political rules ofengagement changed? What are the different outcomes they want from Congress?

Rules matter. The height of the pitcher’s mound changed the relationshipbetween pitchers and hitters. Before Congress changes the rules for conductingelections, it would seem to make sense to know who, exactly, is buying campaignfinance reform.

Cleta Mitchell, Esq.Sullivan & Mitchell P.L.L.C.Counsel, Election Law Enforcement Project

ix

Executive Summary

O O O

• The campaign finance reform ‘campaign’ is controlled and financed by liberalDemocrats: wealthy soft money donors to the Democratic party andcandidates, liberal foundations and Democratic operatives.

• The campaign finance reform network is a massive national network of liberalorganizations, projects and activities that is extremely well funded.

• Since 1996, the campaign finance reform ‘campaign’ has raised and spentmore than $73 million: $67.3 million by national organizations and at least$6 million at the state and local level.

• Funding the campaign finance reform campaign are a core group of liberalfoundations who also finance other ultra-liberal organizations and causes, suchas: abortion rights, anti-business/anti-corporate environmentalism, gay andlesbian rights, drug legalization, and gun control, among others.

• Other primary sources of funds for the campaign finance movement arewealthy individuals who are also major donors to the Democratic party andcandidates, such as: George Soros, Steven T. Kirsch, and Jerome Kohlberg.

• Since 1997, George Soros has provided $4.7 million to the campaign finance‘reform’ movement.

• In 1998, Soros funneled more than $600,000 to Arizonans for Clean Elections(ACE), which created public financing for Arizona state candidates:• Soros accounted for more than 71% of the funds to ACE.• Less than $600 was received in donations of $25.00 or less.• 95% of the funding for ACE came in donations in excess of $1,000.• ACE Treasurer Gary Tredway turned out to be a Vietnam War protestor

wanted for felony convictions for more than thirty years – and whoreceived one of former President Clinton’s last minute pardons.

• In 1999, George Soros and seven wealthy friends created their own politicalcommittee, Campaign for a Progressive Future, which funded almost $2million of political activities in 2000, including $200,000 to the Million MomPAC.

• Steven T. Kirsch, one of the donors to Campaign for a Progressive Future,contributed $500,000 to campaign finance ‘reform’ groups in 2000.

x

• Kirsch personally spent $1.8 million in independent expenditures against thepresidential candidacy of George W. Bush in 2000

• Jerome Kohlberg donated $100,000 to Campaign for America to buy televisionads saying, “Let’s get the $100,000 checks out of politics.”

• Kohlberg spent more than $400,000 of his own money campaigning against theelection of Republican Jim Bunning to the U.S. Senate from Kentucky in 1998.

• Sen. John McCain has received several thousand dollars in campaigncontributions from these same wealthy donors, one of only three Republicancandidates to receive support from these Democratic partisans in recent years.The other two GOP candidates are Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) and formerRep. Rick Lazio from New York.

• Since 1996, the Joyce Foundation has provided more than $1.16 million ingrants to influence media coverage of campaign finance reform, including:

• $212,141 to National Public Radio;• $41,500 to Washington Week in Review (PBS);• $30,000 to Mother Jones to investigate contributions to House GOP

freshmen in 1995;• $200,000 to train editors and journalists on covering the issue of

campaign finance.

Conclusion:

Mainstream Americans, moderates and conservatives alike, should be verywary of the campaign finance reform ‘campaign’.

It is an ideological battle being waged by people with a decidedly liberalpublic policy agenda, who view changing the campaign finance rules as a means toaccomplish their liberal policy objectives.

1

Chapter 1:Who Are These People?

A Guide to the Campaign Finance Reform Network

O O O

There is a vast national network of well-financed, well-organized campaignfinance ‘reformers’ in America. These campaign finance interest groups castthemselves as poor underdogs, fighting hard against ‘big money’…

But the facts demonstrate otherwise. The ‘opposition’ the reformers considerthemselves to be up against is corporate America, the real target of the reformers.Curiously, corporate America neither knows nor realizes it is in a fight and is noteven engaged in the campaign finance battle.

On the other hand, the national pro-campaign finance ‘reform’ effort consistsof layers of organizations, projects, task forces, study groups and the like. They arefreestanding single-issue campaign finance organizations and seemingly or formerlymulti-issue organizations that have become virtually single-issue campaign financereform organizations. There are projects at academic institutions, media projects,and grassroots mobilizing and initiative campaign committees.

In short, the list is long. This is a partial compilation of that network.

Single Issue—and Practically Single-Issue—Campaign Finance Organizations

Here is a list of the most notable single issue groups—those whose sole raisond’être is campaign finance reform—and their stated missions:

The Brennan Center

Brennan Center for Justice, located in New York City at New York UniversityCollege of Law, involves itself in litigation with the express purpose ofoverturning Buckley v. Valeo, and releases reports designed to undermine thelegal principles of Buckley.

The Center for Responsive Politics

The Center for Responsive Politics—led by former FEC General CounselLawrence Noble—tracks money in politics and publishes reports attemptingto establish relationships between money, elections and public policy-makers,inferring the existence of corruption in the political process.


2

Common Cause

Common Cause actively works for federal and state legislation to limitcampaign spending and political contributions and to ban contributions topolitical parties used for party-building activities. Common Cause supportsso-called ‘clean elections’ that, in their opinion, would use taxpayer moneyONLY to fund political campaigns at every level: local, state and federal.

Democracy 21

A relatively new player in the campaign finance reform movement,Democracy 21 is run by Fred Wertheimer, former head of Common Cause.Democracy 21 purports to conduct education and research on issues ofcampaign finance reform. What Democracy 21 primarily does is agitate foroverhaul of the campaign finance system with a ultimate goal of full publicfunding.

Public Campaign

Public Campaign—headed by Ellen Miller, formerly with the Center forResponsive Politics—was founded in 1997 and is one of the most activenational organizations in the campaign finance reform movement. Workingin the states and at the national level, the single-focus aim of this organizationis to create a publicly funded—read ‘taxpayer funded’—campaign financesystem.

Multi-Topic Organizations Focusing on Campaign Finance Reform

Then there are the organizations which may promote more than one issue butfor whom campaign finance reform is a substantial focus, particularly as a means toachieving the organization’s other public policy goals:

League of Women Voters

Like Public Campaign, Common Cause and Democracy 21, the ultimate goalof the League of Women Voters is full taxpayer funding of politicalcampaigns at every level of government.

Center for Public Integrity

The Center for Public Integrity brands its work as ‘watchdog journalism’—similar to the Center for Responsive Politics, many of its projects focus oncreating causal links between money and politics.

Who Are These People? A Guide to the Campaign Finance Network

3

Public Citizen

This ever-present consumer group founded by Ralph Nader includes as partof its mission complete government regulation of political speech, with themain goal of eliminating corporate involvement in the political process.

US Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG)

Another Ralph Nader-founded entity, this organization was establishedinitially as grassroots consumer, anti-corporate, environmental groups in anumber of states. Today, the national organization is bolstered by chapters intwenty-six states. Their primary objectives are still environmental andconsumer related, lobbying for the ‘public interest against the special interestswhen consumers are the victims of private greed’ – and for whom campaignfinance reform is an issue of paramount concern. Their goal is to lower thelimits and ultimately eliminate contributions to all political candidates fromany source but the government as a means of getting rid of ‘corruption’ andthe influence of private (greedy) interests.

Projects at Academic Institutions and Think Tanks

All of the following projects are funded by the Joyce Foundation and exist atacademic institutions and ‘think tanks’:

Brookings Institution.

Project One: To update and expand its sourcebook of primary andsecondary campaign finance reform documents and to publish those inboth electronic and print forms.

Project Two: A second grant to organize and support the WorkingGroup on Campaign Finance Reform, a group of poliltical financeexperts, to engage in a structured online conversation about thestrengths and weaknesses of the ‘bipartisan’ reform proposalsconsidered by Congress.

George Washington University.

Project: Establishment of a campaign finance ‘policy’ forum.

Georgetown University Department of Government.

Project: A research project to examine the attitudes, motives andbehaviors of individuals who contribute to congressional candidates andto assess the likely behavior of donors under various campaign financereform scenarios.


4

University of Illinois at Springfield Institute for Public Affairs.

Projects: To promote political finance reform through databasedevelopment, research, publications, and technical and policy assistanceto elected officials, journalists, and reform activists. Another grant todevelop a comprehensive and integrated campaign finance database,including both contributions and expenditures in Illinois state electionsbetween 1994 and 1998 and to provide the public with analyses of thedata.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Project: To examine a range of campaign finance reform alternatives forIllinois, including options for public financing and to assess the policyconsequences of the state’s largely unregulated system of politicalcontributions.

University of Maryland Department of Government and Politics.

Project: To complete a study on the motives, attitudes and behavior ofmajor donors to congressional candidates.

Ohio State University Research Foundation.

Project: A nationwide poll that would evaluate public attitudes towardcampaign finance reform by examining the issue from the perspective ofrespondents’ issue concerns and group associations.

Princeton University Department of Politics.

Project: A publication to explore ways of reforming the federalcampaign finance system to neutralize ‘the partisan effects’ of thesystem.

Southern Illinois University Public Policy Institute.

Project: To conduct a series of seminars for a select group of officials,party leaders, and political finance experts to examine Illinois’ campaignfinance laws, proposed reform options, and regulatory experiences ofother jurisdictions with the goal of trying to find common ground onneeded reforms.

Who Are These People? A Guide to the Campaign Finance Network

5

Note: In reviewing the purposes and intents of the projects listed above, it isapparent that there is a consistent theme: it is that the system is bad, too partisan,needs to be changed and more government regulation is desirable.

Projects and Committees on ‘Money & Politics ’

There are a myriad of advocacy projects and organizations across the countryworking to ‘change the way money and politics work’ in America. They include:

American Friends Service CommitteeArchdiocese of Chicago—Office of the Ministry of Peace and JusticeArizonans for Clean ElectionsCitizens Action Coalition (Indiana)Citizens Policy Center (Ohio)Commonwealth Education Project (Massachusetts)Connecticut Citizen Research GroupDemocracy SouthFlorida Consumer Action NetworkHawaii Elections ProjectIowa Citizen Action NetworkLouisiana Labor-Neighbor FundMaine Citizen Leadership FundMassachusetts Voters for Clean ElectionsMichigan Citizens FundMichigan Prospect for Renewed CitizenshipMinnesota Alliance for Progressive ActionMissouri Alliance for Campaign ReformMoney & Politics IowaMontana Public Interest Research FoundationNew Hampshire Citizens AllianceNortheast ActionProtestants for the Common GoodPublic Justice Foundation of TexasPublic Policy and Education Fund of New YorkRevisioning New MexicoUnited Vision for IdahoUtah Progressive NetworkWashington Citizen Action and Education FundWisconsin Citizen Action FundWisconsin Democracy Campaign

For more specific information about these projects and their funding seeChapter 4. Nor do these projects count the New York Times, Washington Post editorialboards – and similar editorial activists in the media nationwide. No wonder thisissue never seems to go away…

7

Chapter 2:There’s Too Much Money in Campaign Finance Reform…

O O O

Not only is there a massive pro-campaign finance reform network as outlinedin Chapter 1, it is very well funded. That is particularly odd in light of the fact thatthere is not now, nor has there ever existed, any real organized opposition to themighty campaign finance reform cabal.

Contrary to Sen. John McCain’s delusions of martyrdom that somehow he isstanding up proud and tall to some ‘vast force’, there is no single issue, well-financed anti-campaign finance organization in the country whose sole job isarguing against campaign finance reform.

In the campaign finance world, every day is Yankees v. Devil Rays. But thewell-funded team is the one favoring, not opposing, campaign finance reform.

While there are a few brave organizations such as ACU and the NationalRight to Life Committee who fight the campaign finance regulation army on anongoing basis, the resources to do so are in no way close to being balanced on bothsides.

Here’s what some of the major campaign finance groups have spent in recentyears:

• William J. Brennan Jr. Center for Justice $3.5 million 1998-99• Center for Responsive Politics $3.2 million 1997-99• Democracy 21 $700,000 1998-99• Public Campaign $5.8 million 1998-99• Center for Public Integrity $2.1 million 1998• League of Women Voters $3.2 million 1999• Public Citizen $8.8 million 1998-99• Common Cause* $30 million 1997-99

TOTAL FUNDS SPENT BETWEEN 1997 – 1999: $67.3 million

*Common Cause claims to have an annual budget of $10 million.

With the exception of the Common Cause figure, most of this is (c)(3) moneyand doesn’t include money spent by the groups’ affiliated (c)(4) organizations. It isobvious there is too much money in the campaign finance reform movement.

9

Chapter 3:Where Do the Campaign Finance Reformers Get Their Money

and What Do These Speech Police Really Believe?

O O O

It’s amazing that there could be in America funding sources that are willingto finance anti-free speech fighters to the tune of millions of dollars per year. Andthat doesn’t even count all the free media enjoyed by the campaign finance reformmovement at the hands of the liberal media nationwide.

Where does the money come from?

Who IS buying campaign finance reform?

Much of it comes from ultra liberal foundations that are also the sources offunding for scores of other issues, programs, projects and organizations that areanathema to conservatives.

‘Following the money’ may provide the clues as to why liberals, includingHollywood and the liberal media, seem so committed to campaign finance ‘reform’.

Understanding their money tree also underscores that the campaign finance‘reformers’ care about this issue for reasons beyond funding campaigns.

There is a liberal agenda which the reformers think would be more easilyaccomplished if they could just ‘lower the pitcher’s mound’ -- rewrite the rules ofengagement for politics and politicians in order to accomplish their substantive,philosophical objectives.

This couldn’t be more clearly delineated than by seeing where the campaignfinance reformers get their money – and what else those funding sources care aboutand give money to support.

The following tables tell the story of who is promoting the cause of campaignfinance reform – and a pretty good idea of why they care so much.


10

Table 1: Major Campaign Finance Groups and Their Common Funding Sources

Funders:Carnegie

Foundation

Florence &John

SchumannFoundation

FordFoundation

JoyceFoundation

Open SocietyInstitute

(George Soros)


CFR Groups:

BrennanCenter

$550,0001996-1999

$425,0001995-1998

$1,000,0001999

$742,5001996-1999

$700,0001998-2000

Center forPublic

Integrity

$1,048,3001995-2000

$1,000,0001995-1996

$598,4021996-2000

$616,0001997 & 2000

Center forResponsive

Politics

$1,150,0001992-2000

$900,0001995-1998

$1,000,0002000

$650,0001997-1999

$1,085,0001996-1998

CommonCause

EducationFund (created

in 2000)

$125,0002000

Democracy 21 $175,0001999-2000

$100,0001998

$255,0001998-1999

$235,0001998-2000

League ofWomen Voters

$150,0001999

$1,000,0001999

$1,356,000 over 3yrs to various local

chapters

$132,2502000

$1,650,0001996-1997

NationalPublic Radio(for coverage

of CFR)

$25,0001998

$86,0001995-1996

$212,1411996-1997

(NPR received$3,375,000 from Pew

between 1995 and 1999for coverage of arts,culture, religion andundefined 'critical

issues')

PublicCampaign

$50,0001999-2000

$5,000,000(4 year grant)

$3,100,0001997-2000

Public Citizen $50,0001997&2000

$85,0001997-1999

Table 2: Other Organizations Supported by the Funders of Campaign Finance Reform

CarnegieFoundation

Florence & JohnSchumannFoundation

Ford Foundation Joyce FoundationOpen Society

Institute(George Soros)


• Center on Budget &Policy Priorities

• People for theAmerican Way

• National Public Radio• Tides Foundation

• Tides Foundation• Earth Action Network• NPR (non-CFR)


• ACLU Foundation• AFL-CIO (Working for

America Institute &Center for WorkingCapital)

• NPR & PRI (non-CFR)• People for the

American Way• NAACP Legal



• Feminist MajorityFoundation




• NAACP LegalDefense & EducationFund


• Sierra ClubFoundation


• Consumer Federationof America


• Abortion AccessProject

• ACLU Foundation• Consumer Federation

of America• Feminist Majority

Foundation• Ms. Foundation• NAACP Legal



• National AbortionRights Action LeagueFoundation


• Public CitizenFoundation


• Planned Parenthood(locally in PA andnationwide)



• Earthjustice LegalDefense Fund

• NPR (non-CFR)• Tides Foundation

Where Do the Campaign Finance Reformers Get Their Money?

11

Most of the liberal causes, organizations and projects listed in Table 2 andfunded by the pro-campaign finance reform foundations are well known.

Others, such as the Tides Foundation, may not be. But the Tides Foundationis a force to be reckoned with. Located in San Francisco, the Tides Foundationreceives tax-deductible money from larger foundations and redistributes it to liberalcauses, including 501(c)(4) advocacy organizations, which is of dubious legalityunder the Internal Revenue Code. Part of its stated mission is to strengthen theprogressive (read: liberal) movement through its grantmaking. The TidesFoundation awards grants to other activist groups categorized in several issue areas:

• Economic Justice• Environmental Justice• Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Issues• HIV/AIDS• Women's Empowerment/Reproductive Health.

The Tides Foundation supports in substantial ways numerous fringeenvironmental activist causes and projects documented in a comprehensive studyincluded in Undue Influence: Wealthy Foundation, Grant-Driven EnvironmentalGroups, and Zealous Bureaucrats That Control Your Future, by Ron Arnold (FreeEnterprise Press: 1999).

The pro-campaign finance movement is anti-corporate, anti-business andanti-free enterprise. When the left talks about ‘soft money’, they are talking aboutcorporate America’s contributions to political parties. The liberals operate on theassumption that if corporations (read: huge, greedy multinationals) could bestopped from contributing to political parties, that would ‘level the playing field’ forenvironmentalists or other anti-corporate interests to win political and policy battlesin Congress.

The campaign finance reform movement is also funded by the same sourcesas the movement for abortion rights. The National Right to Life Committee clearlyunderstands that the campaign finance bell tolls for them – which is why it is soimportant to anti-abortion activists to fight the campaign finance reformers at everystep.

Those who champion ‘reform’ have a substantive, liberal political agenda oftheir own. Their proposed rule changes are designed to tilt the playing field in favorof candidates who will enact a liberal agenda at every level of government. In theirhandbook for activists and candidates, the liberal group Campaign for America’sFuture labels campaign finance reform “a prerequisite to enacting much of theprogressive agenda.”


12

In other words, the campaign finance reform movement is undeniably aliberal plot to silence the less than vast right wing conspiracy.

Sound paranoid? Probably. But as the saying goes, just because we’reparanoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get us.

13

Chapter 4:Money and More Money for Campaign Finance Reform…

O O O

Not only do the campaign finance reformers work on the national stage withtens of millions of dollars, they have created an enormous network of organizations,projects and activities at the state level, nationwide.

There are state chapters of the national organizations listed earlier: CommonCause, the League of Women Voters, USPIRG and others. Those organizationslobby for ‘campaign finance reform’ at the state level year in and year out, saying thesame things to the press and the public that we hear in Washington, which is that‘the system is corrupt and we have to limit and eliminate money in politics.’

Not counting what those state organizations spend, there are advocacyprojects across the nation, funded by several primary sources, especially the JoyceFoundation and the Proteus Fund (described in Chapter 5).

In the past five years, between 1996 and 2000, the following projects havereceived and spent $6 million on campaign finance ‘reform’ projects of everyimaginable variety.

Take a look.

American Friends Service CommitteeGrant: $50,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 2000Purpose: To promote campaign finance reform in Cincinnati through

public education on a proposed charter amendment

Grant: $25,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1999Purpose: Support for the Ohio-based Dollars & Democracy Project

Grant: $245,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1997Purpose: Support for the Dollars & Democracy project, a collaborative

effort with the Chicago, Cincinnati, and Cleveland Catholicdioceses to activate the faith community on behalf of state andfederal campaign finance reform

Grant: $179,455 from the Joyce Foundation in 1996Purpose: To organize, in partnership with the Chicago, Akron and

Dayton Roman Catholic Archdioceses, 300 community-basededucational forums on campaign finance reform


14

Archdiocese of Chicago—Office of the Ministry of Peace and JusticeGrant: $47,353 from the Joyce Foundation in 1999Purpose: Money & Politics grant in support of the Catholic Political

Responsibility Project

Arizonans for Clean ElectionsGrant: Three grants totaling $135,000 from the Proteus Fund in 1997-

1998Purpose: Direct Lobbying expense: campaign finance referendum,

Arizona

Citizens Action Coalition (Indiana)Grant: $256,250 from the Joyce Foundation in 1997Purpose: For a multi-organizational, statewide effort to educate, organize

and mobilize citizens in Indiana on behalf of campaign financereform

Citizens Policy Center (Ohio)Grant: $340,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1999Purpose: For efforts to reform Ohio’s campaign finance laws

Grant: $25,000 from the Proteus Fund in 1998Purpose: Public education and research on campaign finance reform in

Ohio

Grant: $270,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1997Purpose: For efforts to reform Ohio’s campaign finance laws

Commonwealth Education ProjectGrant: $40,000 from the Proteus Fund in 1998Purpose: Public education and research on campaign finance reform in

Massachusetts

Connecticut Citizen Research Group


Connecticut

Democracy South

Grant: $100,000 grant from George Soros’ Open Society Institute in1998

Purpose: To support research, education, and non-partisan politicaladvocacy on the role of money in state politics in southern states

Money and More Money for Campaign Finance Reform…

15


North Carolina

Florida Consumer Action Network


Florida

Hawaii Elections Project


Hawaii

Iowa Citizen Action Network

Grant: $50,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1999Purpose: For project to make campaign finance reform an important

political issue during the lead-up to Iowa's presidentialnominating caucuses in 2000


Iowa

Louisiana Labor-Neighbor Fund

Grant: Two grants--$25,000 and $15,000—from the Proteus Fund in1998

Purpose: Public education and research on campaign finance reform inLouisiana

Maine Citizen Leadership Fund

Grant: $20,000 from George Soros’ Open Society Institute in 1998Purpose: To support participatory discussion of public financing of

elections in Maine in 1998


Purpose: Public education and research on campaign finance reform inMaine

Massachusetts Voters for Clean Elections

Grant: $50,000 from the Proteus Fund in 1998Purpose: Direct Lobbying expense: campaign finance referendum in

Massachusetts


16

Michigan Citizens Fund

Grant: $190,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1997Purpose: To promote public financing of Michigan election campaigns

through citizen education, grassroots organizing, research, andpolicy advocacy

Michigan Prospect for Renewed Citizenship

Grant: $325,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 2000Purpose: To support efforts to reform Michigan’s campaign finance

system

Grant: $126,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1999Purpose: For its efforts to lead a multi-organizational strategic planning

process for a possible political finance ballot initiative in 2002


Michigan

Minnesota Alliance for Progressive ActionGrant: $200,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 2000Purpose: For educational and advocacy efforts to replace Minnesota’s

current partial public election financing system with full publicfinancing


Minnesota

Grant: $150,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1998Purpose: To develop, in concert with other organizations, a

comprehensive campaign finance reform agenda for Minnesotaand to promote its adoption through research, public education,community organizing, and communications

Grant: $40,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1996Purpose: To develop a statewide computerized database of campaign

contributions and to analyze and publicize their effects onelections and policymaking in Minnesota

Missouri Alliance for Campaign ReformGrant: $70,000 from the Proteus Fund in 1998Purpose: Direct Lobbying expense: Campaign finance referendum in

Missouri


17

Money & Politics Iowa

Grant: $156,530 from the Joyce Foundation in 2000Purpose: To promote campaign finance reform in Iowa through database

development, research, public education, news media outreach,and policy advocacy

Grant: $130,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1998Purpose: To develop a campaign finance database, create a web site, and

publish analyses of political contributions and expenditures

Montana Public Interest Research Foundation


Montana

New Hampshire Citizens Alliance


New Hampshire

Northeast Action (p.k.a. Northeast Citizen Action Research Fund)

Grant: $50,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 2000Purpose: For a collaborative initiative to ensure full and timely execution,

legal defense, and funding of the comprehensive campaignfinance reforms adopted since 1996 in Maine, Massachusetts,Arizona, and Vermont.

Grant: $75,000 from George Soros’ Open Society Institute in 1998Purpose: To support research, education, and non-partisan advocacy on

the role of money in politics in New England and New York

Presbytery of Chicago/Protestants for the Common Good

Grant: $174,734 from the Joyce Foundation in 1998Purpose: To educate the Illinois religious community about campaign

finance reform issues and to mobilize support among churchactivists on behalf of needed reforms

Grant: $50,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1997Purpose: To educate members of Chicago-area churches about campaign

finance issues and to mobilize them to work for reform


18

Public Justice Foundation of Texas


Texas

Public Policy and Education Fund of New York


New York

Revisioning New Mexico


New Mexico

United Vision for Idaho


Purpose: Public education and research on campaign finance reform inIdaho

Utah Progressive Network


Utah

Washington Citizen Action and Education Fund


Washington

Wisconsin Citizen Action Fund

Grant: $360,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 2000Purpose: For promotion of Impartial Justice, a proposal that calls for full

or near-full public funding of Wisconsin Supreme Courtelections, through policy and legal research, advocacy, publiceducation, coalition-building, media outreach, and grassrootsorganizing activities.

Grant: $160,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1999Purpose: For its efforts to promote reform of Wisconsin’s campaign

finance system


19


Purpose: Public education and research on campaign finance reform inWisconsin

Grant: $230,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1997Purpose: For project to promote within a broad coalition of organizations

a campaign finance reform agenda for Wisconsin

Wisconsin Citizen Education Fund

Grant: $40,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1996Purpose: To develop and promote within a broad coalition of

organizations a campaign finance reform agenda for Wisconsin

Grant: $25,500 from the Joyce Foundation in 1996Purpose: To develop, in cooperation with the Wisconsin Democracy

Campaign, a computerized database of political contributionsmade to state candidates during the 1994 and 1996 electioncycles and to issue a series of analytical reports

Wisconsin Democracy Campaign

Grant: $485,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 2000Purpose: To improve Wisconsin's campaign finance law through policy

research and development, advocacy, public education,coalition building, and citizen activism.

Grant: $293,760 from the Joyce Foundation in 1999Purpose: For efforts to reform Wisconsin’s campaign finance laws

Grant: $250,000 from the Joyce Foundation in 1997Purpose: For efforts to reform Wisconsin’s campaign finance system

Total for Years 1996 through 2000: $6 million

21

Chapter 5:A Case Study In Hypocrisy:

Arizona’s ‘Clean Elections’ Campaign

O O O

In 1998, Arizona voters passed the Arizona Clean Elections Initiative, aneffort put on the ballot through initiative petition and which passed 51-49% on astatewide vote at the general election in November 1998. The initiative set in place ataxpayer-funded campaign finance system for state elections—the national goal ofmost campaign finance reform groups including Common Cause, the League ofWomen Voters, Public Campaign, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union.

What Arizona voters may not have known was that the organizers behind theso-called ‘clean’ elections drive were using the very same big-money contributionsthey complain about.

Arizonans for Clean Elections, the group sponsoring the initiative, receivedalmost $1 million dollars in contributions for the statewide campaign effort:

Ø Less than $600 of that came in donations under $25.

Ø Over 95% came from donors who gave more than $1000.

Ø Over 10% came from one single source: George Soros. (For more informationabout Mr. Soros, see Chapter 7.) In June 1998, Soros wrote a check for $100,000.This at the same time that he was giving over $360,000 for an effort to liberalizeArizona’s drug laws, primarily the legalization of marijuana. So much formaking democracy available to theeveryday folks.

Soros’ money turns up behind theother major funders of ACE:

Ø In 1997 Soros’ foundation, the OpenSociety Institute, awarded a$3,000,000 grant to Public Campaign,the national group that wants to take‘big money’ out of politics, which inturn donated almost $350,000 to the Arizona effort--$16,000 of that through in-kind contributions for the compensation of several staffers. In all, PublicCampaign provided almost 40% of the money received by Arizonans for Clean

Figure 1: Arizonans for Clean Elections--Donation Sources

All Others35%

George Soros11%

Proteus Fund15%

Public Campaign

39%


22

Elections. This in an ironic effort to be sure that every campaign in America willone day be funded with taxpayer dollars.

Ø In 1998, the Open Society Institute awarded a $300,000 grant to a 501(c)(3)charitable organization in Amherst, Massachusetts, the Proteus Fund, which thengave $135,000 to Arizonans for Clean Elections.

The Proteus Fund

A primary source of funds for state campaign finance projects, including theArizona Clean Elections campaign, is the Proteus Fund. (See the list of state-basedactivities in Chapter 4.) As a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, the Proteus Fund isprohibited from engaging in political campaigns. Their funding for the campaignfinance reform effort in Arizona is described by the organization on its 1998 taxreturn as ‘direct lobbying’. The group spent $1.3 million that year making donationsaround the country to various state-based entities, including many of the groupslisted in Chapter 4. (See the list beginning on page 13.)

The Proteus Fund’s leaders are active in Democratic politics and liberalcauses. Its president, Meg Gage, spent the 1980’s leading an arms controlorganization called the Peace Development Fund. Gage was given an award in 1986for creative grantmaking and her creativity appears to continue—along with

Figure 2: Following George Soros’ Money to Arizonans for Clean Elections*

Arizonans forClean Elections

George Soros /Open Society

Institute

Public Campaignand affiliates

ProteusFund

$3,000,000 $300,000$100,000

$135,000$347,000

PeaceDevelopment

Fund

$50,000

The president of theProteus Fund foundedthe PeaceDevelopment Fund

Total contributions to A.C.E.: $892,000Total Soros-related contributions: $632,000 (71%)

*Soros lists an official address in New York and does not does not reside or vote in Arizona.

A Case Study in Hypocrisy: Arizona’s ‘Clean Elections’ Campaign

23

Proteus, the Peace Development Fund was a $50,000 donor to Arizonans for CleanElections.

A look at the other Proteus Board members offers clear evidence that thecampaign finance issue is certainly not non-partisan:

Tom Asher – a Washington, DC attorney whose firm represents liberal non-profit organizations.

Donna Edwards – the Executive Director of the Arca Foundation inWashington, DC that has done some grantmaking in the area of campaignfinance reform.

Edgar James – a Washington, DC attorney, former staff director of the UnitedMine Workers and the founder of Miners for Democracy.

Mike Lux – runs a liberal political consulting firm and was Senior VicePresident for Political Action at Norman Lear’s non-profit organization,People for the American Way. Since 1997, Lux has given $12,000 to theDemocratic Party and Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clintonand Dick Gephardt.

Alan Rabinowitz – a consultant and author specializing in social changephilanthropy. Since 1997, he and his wife have given over $3,000 toDemocratic congressional candidates.

Byron Rushing – a Democrat representing parts of Boston in theMassachusetts House of Representatives.

Judy Senderowitz – founded the Center for Population Options (nowAdvocates for Youth) and works on family planning issues in the U.S. andinternationally.

Marjorie Tabankin – the director of the Streisand Foundation, the formerdirector of the Hollywood Women's Political Committee and a politicalappointee in the Carter Administration.

Robert Zevin – an investment adviser who created Boston-based US Trust'ssocially responsible investment program and has given over $4000 toDemocratic congressional candidates.

One wonders how campaign finance reformers can label what they do ‘bi-partisan’ when their funders are so clearly partisan Democrats.

But the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. In a scathing piece written during the1998 campaign, liberal columnist Molly Ivins characterized Arizonans for Clean


24

Elections as poor little ‘beleaguered’ do-gooders facing the big ugly special interests.Never mind that the group received two-thirds of its money from only threesources—all out of state and influenced (if not controlled) by one very very very richguy (see Figure 1 on page 21). And the kicker is that two days before her columnwas published, she made a $100 donation to the group. So much for journalisticimpartiality.

The irony is that these so-called do-gooders—the ones who want to ‘clean up’the political process—can’t even play by the existing rules. George Soros may havedirected hundreds of thousands of dollars to Arizonans for Clean Elections throughvarious organizations, one of which—the Proteus Fund—used tax-deductibledonations to the campaign.

Finally, the treasurer of Arizonans for Clean Elections, Gary Tredway, wasdiscovered last year during his campaign for the Scottsdale City Council to be noneother than Howard Mechanic, a Vietnam War protester who jumped bail 30 yearsago on a conviction for throwing a cherry bomb at a firefighter in St. Louis.Tredway, a.k.a. Mechanic, was one of those pardoned by President Clinton in hislast hours in office

Clearly the rules don’t apply to the reformers. George Soros and Soros-related organizations provided over 70% of the funds for the Arizona effort (seeFigure 2 on page 22). What would the so-called reformers have said if that had beentobacco money? These guys aren’t really fighting for a ‘level playing field’. Theywant to tilt the playing field in their direction and they believe that campaignfinance reform will do just that.

If we are looking at Arizona as a guide to what the sponsors of campaignfinance reform want (legalization of drugs) and their methods of getting what theywant (big liberal money seeking to silence voices on the other side of issues) toaccomplish taxpayer funded political campaigns, let’s be sure we learn the reallessons of Arizona – and avoid making those mistakes in Congress.

25

Chapter 6:The Media Slices Its Share of the Campaign Finance Money Pie

O O O

Even the media itself is not without its share of the campaign finance reformmoney pie from the liberal foundations. It turns out that the campaign financereform funders also provide money to influence the actual coverage and reportingon the issue of campaign finance reform. Since 1996 Joyce has made grants in its“Money & Politics” category totaling more than $13 million to finance everyconceivable campaign finance reform endeavor anyone can think of, includingfinancing specific projects to insure that the media is properly ‘trained’ on the issueof campaign finance reform – to the tune of $1.16 million.

Taxpayer-supported National Public Radio has received $212,141 from theJoyce Foundation since 1996 for ‘coverage of campaign finance, government ethicsand political influence issues’.

While that may sound innocuous, when it is viewed in the context of theother recipients of Joyce Foundation largesse at the same time, a substantially leftistpolitical agenda emerges to which the campaign finance reform movement isinextricably tied.

Beginning in 1996, the Joyce Foundation actually established a separatecategory under its Money & Politics grants entitled “News/Media Grants”.

Here is what they have funded.

• $41,500 for the production of four video segments on campaign financingto be aired on Washington Week in Review

• $342,000 to Investigative Reporters and Editors for an on-line CampaignFinance Information Center

• Another $200,000 Investigative Reporters and Editors to increase andimprove news media coverage of campaign finance issues

• $30,000 for a Mother Jones magazine investigative report into campaignfinance practices of the 1995 House freshmen

• $100,000 to the Alliance for Better Campaigns whose goal is to require freetelevision airtime for candidates

• $30,000 to the Tides Foundation for ‘news reports on campaign financeissues broadcast semi-monthly over the Monitor Radio network’


26

• $200,000 for the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation for a‘training initiative to help television, radio and print journalists providebetter news coverage of the influence of private money on electoral,legislative and regulatory processes’.

As shocking as it sounds, the fact is that the campaign finance ‘reform’funders have actually targeted the media to be financially supported and trainedand encouraged to report about campaign finance ‘reform’ in a subjective manner –something that conservatives have long suspected but never quite been able todocument.

It would be another interesting study to delve into each of these grants andascertain who in the media has participated in and responded to these variousprojects. Wonder which liberal foundation would publish THAT information in astudy?

27

Chapter 7:OK, Fine, Let George Soros Replace the DNC

O O O

So, what would happen if McCain-Feingold became law? The stated purposeof the bill is the elimination of the political parties’ non-federal accounts which iswhere all corporate, labor union and individual contributions in excess of $20,000per year are deposited. All state and local political parties would be federalized andessentially precluded from doing much in the way of helping support the parties’candidates for Congress.

And what would happen to the corporations, labor unions and individualdonors who now give more than $20,000 per year to the party committees?

An educated guess:

Labor unions would have more money to spend for the political mobilizationefforts on which they already spend millions and millions of dollars.

Corporations would have even more money to spend on lobbying Congress –but would be spared having to contribute to political parties

And the wealthy individuals? We can already see what would happen.

Instead of contributions to the Democratic and Republican NationalCommittees -- all of which is reported and accounted for—the funds would flowinstead from wealthy donors to committees they create and causes they control.More importantly, there is little accountability in how these private committeesactually spend their money.

Here is one example of how a few wealthy Democratic donors are alreadyestablishing alternative systems outside the DNC.

Eight wealthy Democratic donors in 1999 created the Campaign for aProgressive Future (“CPF”), their own political committee. Together, they putalmost $2 million into CPF in one year.

CPF reports a $200,000 contribution to the Million Mom PAC. The MillionMom PAC was formed on June 29, 2000 and lists as its location, San FranciscoGeneral Hospital, which is owned and operated by the City and County of SanFrancisco. Million Mom PAC is a political committee under the Internal RevenueCode. San Francisco General Hospital, as a taxpayer funded institution, is strictly


28

forbidden from spending public funds for activities related to political candidates orcampaigns. The only reported donor to Million Mom PAC is the Campaign for aProgressive Future.

CPF reported a total of $1,758,000 in contributions from the eight individuals,all of whom are high dollar contributors to Democratic candidates and DemocraticParty committees. (See Table 3 below.) The notable exception to their strictlypartisan Democratic giving pattern is that two of the eight donors each gave $1,000to Sen. John McCain (our campaign finance hero).

One of the eight is none other than George Soros, the fairy-godfather ofArizonans for Clean Elections (see Chapter 5). His Open Society Institute hasprovided at least $4.3 million since 1997 for various national campaign financereform activities, not including his support for state-based projects. (See Table 1 onpage 10.) Another is Steve Kirsch. His Kirsch Foundation gave over $500,000 forcampaign finance reform in 2000 to groups such as the Center for Public Integrity($50,000) and Public Campaign ($436,750).

Table 3: Donors to Campaign for a Progressive Future

CPF Donor Amount to CPF Contributions to Others

(exclusively to Democraticcandidates / Democratic partycommittees in 2000 cycleexcept as noted)

Alida R. Messinger $ 80,000 $88,000

Steven T. Kirsch $250,000 $616,000 party$12,500 candidates$1.8 mm independentexpenditure against GeorgeW. Bush

George Soros $500,000 $100,000 DCCC$61,500 candidates(all to Democrats except$1,000 to Sen. John McCain)

Elizabeth Gilmore $ 250,000 $40,200

Irene Diamond $ 500,000 $11,250

Eli Broad $ 25,000 $36,912 in 2000$270,992 since 1997(all to Democratic candidates& committees except $1,000to McCain; $500 toCongressman Rick Lazio)

John E. Williams, Jr. $ 20,000 $596,000

Pierce O’Donnell $ 5,000 $42,000

OK, Fine, Let George Soros Replace the DNC

29

Apart from the contribution to Million Mom PAC, the expenditures byCampaign for a Progressive Future were lump sum payments to various politicaltype firms for polling, media, research, direct mail and the like. One expenditurewas for more than $100,000 to ACORN for ‘grassroots organizing’. That’s all weknow.

Is this better than having wealthy donors give money to the DNC and RNC?At least we all know what the political parties are doing with their ‘soft money’. Wedon’t know what states, much less what campaigns, CPF was involved in!

Or, what about the anonymous $7 million contributed to and spent by theNAACP and various projects it created especially for the 2000 presidential election –and which ran ads against George W. Bush? Is that a better way for wealthy peopleto be involved in politics?

Another notable example of the hypocrisy in all of this campaign finance‘reform’ business is Jerome R. Kohlberg, a wealthy investment banker who createdand finances an entity known as ‘Campaign for America’. The stated purpose of thisenterprise was and is to promote campaign finance reform and, in particular, theelimination of soft money.

Mr. Kohlberg, like the other wealthy individuals and sources of campaignfinance reform money, is a dedicated liberal Democrat, having given $39,500 tocandidates and Democratic party committees in the last two election cycles, was oneof the $500,000 benefactors to the DNC in 1988 and another $150,000 to the DNC in1992.

Any exceptions to his partisan giving patterns? Kohlberg has recentlysupported only two Republican candidates: Rep. Chris Shays and Sen. JohnMcCain.

Campaign for America, with Kohlberg as its source of funding, ran over$400,000 in ‘soft money’ ads against the Republican candidate Jim Bunning in his1998 race for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky against Scotty Baesler.

Now, Campaign for America is running TV ads in support of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation saying, “Let’s get rid of the $100,000 check inpolitics…”

And this entity is paying for those ads with a (you guessed it) $100,000 checkfrom Jerome Kohlberg. . .

If this weren’t so serious, it would be seriously funny.

31

Conclusion

O O O

What we have done here is what the reformers are always saying we need todo: Follow the money.

But this time, we’ve followed their money.

We’ve found a huge network with millions and millions of dollars, funded byliberals who want to change America in ways conservatives and mainstreamAmericans oppose. Those are the campaign finance reformers.

And, we believe they have a right to their views and to spend their moneypromoting their views.

What we find incredible is that they are spending money to silence ourvoices.

What the reformers have in mind will move money away from the politicalparties and into the hands of a few rich people who will continue to be able to dowhatever they want with no accountability.

Or maybe the campaign reformers just want to move liberal moneyunderground while choking off Republican money altogether. That’s more likely.

It doesn’t take much strategic thinking to realize that the Hollywood andliberal donors to the Democratic Party will simply give their checks to other liberalcauses: the same groups listed on the charts in this report.

But what about wealthy Republican donors?

The truth is that big donors to Republican Party committees are not of a mindwith the Republican grassroots. It is hard to imagine that country club Republicanswill write checks to the National Right to Life Committee, the Christian Coalitionand the National Rifle Association if they can’t give to the Republican Party.

So maybe cutting off money on the right is exactly the plan.

It is obvious that the tens of millions of dollars spent by the campaign financereformers over the years has worked for them. They have accomplished getting thissubject on the radar screen of the media, which in turn berate public officialsnationwide to ‘fix the problem’ identified by the liberals.


32

Now, having indoctrinated the press, the public and now the politicians, thecampaign finance reformers seem poised to get their way.

What is startling is how little effort has been put into understanding thecampaign finance reform movement, who they are and what they want. Nojournalistic watchdogs looking at this movement!

Even more surprising is how few resources have been mobilized byconservatives and others to fight against changes in the system advanced by peopleand groups whose stated purpose is to neutralize and silence conservatives,business and others with whom the liberals disagree.

The real question is how any person or elected official who considers himselfor herself a political moderate through political conservative could possibly want tojoin forces with those whose goals and objectives are the opposite of whatconservatives stand for.

The time is now for conservatives to educate themselves about thisissue, before it’s too late.

Besides a lot of very liberal money, who’s buying campaign finance reform?

Let’s just hope it isn’t the Congress and the President of the United States.

33

Epilogue

O O O

The American Conservative Union is the nation’s oldest and largestconservative grassroots activist organization. The American Conservative UnionFoundation recently created the Election Law Enforcement Project. The project,which has published this report on “Who’s Buying Campaign Finance Reform?”consists of legal actions, research, studies and publications of the AmericanConservative Union Foundation to educate the public and those in decision-makingpositions regarding issues and policies related to campaign finance regulation.

This project can continue only with the support of concerned citizens andorganizations.

If you wish to become involved in assisting with the Election LawEnforcement Project, contact:

ACU Foundation1007 Cameron StreetAlexandria, VA 22314

(703) 836-8602 / (703) 863-8606 (fax)www.conservative.orge-mail: [email protected]

If you have specific questions about this study and the “Who’s BuyingCampaign Finance Reform’ report or would like copies of the endnotes, contact:

Cleta Mitchell, Esq.Sullivan & Mitchell, P.L.L.C.1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W. #330Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 861-5900e-mail: [email protected]

WHO’S BUYING CAMPAIGN FINANCE ‘REFORM’? · PDF fileKohlberg,” Money &...

Documents

Transcript of WHO’S BUYING CAMPAIGN FINANCE ‘REFORM’? · PDF fileKohlberg,” Money &...