A handful of investors and political operatives in Ohio blew more than $15 million on an insane ploy to amend the state’s constitution to create a marijuana monopoly for themselves.
The pot hustlers outspent the anti-marijuana group by a 40-to-1 margin according to the latest campaign finance filings available, and they lost at the ballot box last week almost 2-to-1.
What were they thinking?
I have a theory: Maybe they believed the media line that money could buy elections.
In related news last week, campaign-finance crusader Lawrence Lessig dropped his confusing and quixotic presidential run. Lessig professionally rails against money in politics and objects that “money [can] buy results in Washington.” Lessig unwittingly undermined his own premise in 2014, when his Mayday PAC spent $10 million backing like-minded campaign-finance reformers and lost basically every competitive race.
Lessig’s PAC spent $1.6 million in New Hampshire’s GOP Senate primary, and his candidate, Jim Rubens, finished 27 points behind the winner.
In fact, many other races in 2014 undermined Lessig’s premise. The most expensive U.S. Senate race was in North Carolina, where Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan outspent Republican challenger Thom Tillis $25 million to $11 million. Outside money favored Hagan $45 million to $33 million. Tillis won by 50,000 votes.
Lessig and his fellow campaign finance crusaders are correct that Washington is corrupt and dysfunctional. They are also correct that corporate influence is part of the problem, and the flow of money around politics is corrupting. But they err in assuming that campaign contributions and ad spending by outside groups are the problem.
Curbing campaign finance is curbing political speech rights. It also distracts from, and often exacerbates, a worse source of Washington corruption: the revolving door between Congress and K Street.
Again, last week, we got another demonstration. A year out from the 2016 elections, a campaign-finance reform group, Issue One, launched the “ReFormer Caucus,” which they describe as “a group of former members of Congress and governors who have survived the front lines of our campaign finance system” and now “demand action” on restricting campaign finance.
For regular readers of this column, the words “former members of Congress,” set off an alarm bell. That phrase often translates as “lobbyists.”
A majority of the 111 “reFormers” in the caucus as of Tuesday afternoon were also in the “revolving door” database kept by the Center for Responsive Politics. At least 45 “reFormers” are or have been registered lobbyists, by my count.
That number — 45 lobbyists —doesn’t include the likes of Tom Daschle, who works at lobbying firms and advises policymakers on policymaking but hasn’t registered as a lobbyist. Daschle’s wife is a corporate lobbyist. ReFormer Byron Dorgan is a lobbyist, as is his wife, Kimberly.
Any “reform” that restricts the freedom of outside groups to play in elections or policy debates ends up funneling more power and more money to K Street, and greasing the revolving door.
The law limiting donations to a candidate to less than $3,000 per donor has created demand for volunteer fundraisers, known as “bundlers” who can deliver stacks of $2,600 checks. What sort of person is going to know lots of wealthy individuals or political action committee directors and also want to get in the good graces of a lawmaker? That would be a lobbyist.
Which is more corrupting: a rich guy cutting a $3,000 check (which will be fully disclosed) to a congressional candidate, or a congressman relying on a lobbyist to produce dozens of checks from his clients?
The ReFormers, Lessig, and many congressional Democrats focus their reform efforts on curbing the activities of outside groups, such as super PACs. Super PACs and their cousins are a direct challenge to the power of lobbyists, especially those lobbyists — such as former senators and congressmen — who already have very intimate and valuable friendships with current lawmakers.
The Citizens United ruling that offended reformers so much also upset the lobbyists. Allowing corporations to give to super PACs gives them the ability to speak to voters, and apply pressure on lawmakers that way. That potentially leaves lobbyists out of it and deprives lawmakers of all the perks that come with lobbyist attention.
Backroom deals between lobbyists and lawmakers who want to become lobbyists are at the heart of Washington’s problem. To go after the campaign contributions is to miss the point. Campaign spending is a prerequisite to victory, but money can’t buy a Congress or a policy. Just ask those pot guys in Ohio how much their $15 million bought them.
Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner’s senior political columnist, can be contacted at [email protected]. His column appears Tuesday and Thursday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.
