Daschle's Situation, and the Small-Dollar Solution

When history is written, will Sen. Tom Daschle's withdrawn nomination for President Obama's Cabinet represent a tax issue? No.

Will it represent an issue of "vetting" that can be solved with a few questions on a questionnaire? No.

Will it represent what someday will be seen as a primitive era in our nation's history where big-money special interests were too influential for too long and trapped too many good people in a bad system? Absolutely.

I know Senator Daschle and some of the people involved. They are honest, kind, and passionate people - leaders devoted to change and the betterment of our country. That's why Daschle was one of the first supporters of President Obama's bottom-up campaign - and why he was a fierce advocate for Obama's universal healthcare plan.

But like many other good and decent people, Daschle got caught in a bad system - a system that is so corrupted by money it hardly matters whether the money is from good people with good intentions or bad people with bad intentions. The problem is the money itself.

Let's face it – there is a reason why big corporations are willing to pay good people millions to influence government. They know it will be worth their while, financially. Right now, millions in campaign contributions coupled with millions spent on lobbying can result in billions worth of payback for special interests. It's all legal. And being part of that system is irresistible to many who retire from Congress after years of public service.

But there are some big losers in that equation: The public. The American people have lost faith in a system dominated by money. We don't have lobbyists looking out for the public good. And when non-profit groups do send liaisons to congressional offices, they don't have the same clout as a lobbyist who can put together a $50,000 fundraiser later that evening.

As the $700 billion Wall Street bailout got debated before the 2008 election, constituents had plenty to say - placing thousands of calls and writing thousands of letters to congressional offices. The problem was that Congress wasn't listening. Members of Congress (not "men") were busy calling the same special interests that got our economy into this mess, listening to their requests and begging them for $2,300 checks.

The result was a bailout with no strings attached--taxpayer money that could be legally spent on bonuses, office redecorations, and airplanes. And the same special interests who cut the campaign checks back then are lobbying Congress now, begging for more handouts. Once again, the ones with disproportionate influence in this debate are the public.

As Eugene Robinson correctly pointed out on the Washington Post's website, "Daschle is a good guy, but he's a creature of the system." But it's a fluke is that this creature of the system got in any hot water at all. If Daschle had declared his driver correctly on his taxes, many in Washington, D.C. who have turned a blind eye toward this broken system for years never would have raised an eyebrow.

But guess what? There's a group of people who have seen this problem growing for years and now have the leverage in our political system to do something about it: small-dollar donors.

The power of small-dollar donors was proven in the 2008 election like never before, and the incentives are beginning to realign in a way that promotes politicians catering to the little guy, not the big guy.

But there's one snag. If politicians know that they can depend on small-dollar donors giving online while asking nothing concrete in return, and politicians can still take special interest cash that depends on results, the incentives remain wrong. Politicians will take the little guy's money while still being disproportionately influenced by special interests.

That's why the reform group I started with Lawrence Lessig, called Change Congress, launched a "donor strike" last month. In just a few weeks, 6,300 people who gave a combined $750,000 last election cycle promised not to give a penny more to federal candidates who don't support the bipartisan Durbin-Specter bill which would fundamentally reform the system.

Under this legislation, as it will be re-introduced soon, congressional candidates who raise a threshold number of small-dollar donations would qualify for a chunk of funding--likely several hundred thousand dollars. If they accept this funding, they can't raise big-dollar donations or accept lobbyist money. But they can raise small-dollar contributions up to a certain amount (such as $100), which would be matched several times over by a central fund.

This system has worked on the state level, creating the incentive for politicians to run people-powered campaigns that cater to the little guy. A bipartisan Lake-Tarrance poll showed the public supports this proposal 69% to 13%.

The only thing previously missing was a vehicle for the public to rally around such a proposal. The Change Congress donor strike is that vehicle. Every week, thousands of new people join the strike and give politicians a choice: you can have our money, the people's money, or special-interest money, but you can no longer have both.

I'm sure, now more than ever, Senator Daschle understands the system in which we operate in is broken. And, like Change Congress, I have little doubt the Senator wants fundamental reform too.

So, we invite him—and you—to join our donor strike at Change-Congress.org. (And if you want to help keep this grassroots reform campaign going, you can chip in a small-dollar contribution here.)

Comments

[cfbarnhart]

This is, overall, a good discussion. I would suggest that we all make copies of our posts and then go to Whitehouse.gov, Senate.gov, and House.gov and let our representatives know how we feel.

The frustratiion and anger we all feel must be conveyed loudly and redundantly to our representatives. They need to fear us more than they fear the corporations, and I doubt they read what we're saying here.

[cfbarnhart]

Probably Daschle fell from grace after he left office and didn't expect to be asked back, but it is still inexcusable behavior. He is still a symptom as much as a cause.

The framers of the Constitution envisioned that the people's representatives would be dependent only on the will of the people. That is not true at the moment, and without a historical perspective we don't even realize how much control we've lost. All of our representatives are now dependent on corporate "campaign contributions." D or R. The difference is minor. (Oh, and PACs, 527s, and unions are all corporations -- legal persons -- in the context of this discussion.)

NO major issue facing us will ever be truely resolved until this system is changed. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. Until then I'll work to make corporate money illegal in politics.

[siegfried]

Maybe people who peddle influence aren't good people.

[MrReasonable]

Wow, he makes it sound as though Daschle were an innocent victim. That is so blatantly false it isn't funny. First, he gets voted out of the Senate and then starts collecting millions (in dollars and gifts) as a lobbyist. Then he gets given to him a car and driver. Did he really think this was just some nice gesture from a really nice guy? Of course not, he knew exactly what it was, it was a bribe. And then he purposely leaves it off his taxes and pretends as though his tax accountant didn't know it was income (you would think the accountant would ask, "hey, whose car and driver is that you pulled up in?"). And then Daschle goes to capitol hill and lies about it.

I have to address this small dollar donor sham. Obama had a bunch of donations below $200, for the precise purpose that they did not have to be disclosed. Furthermore, he was the only candidate on either side to forgo AVS (Address Verification System), which verifies the donor is who he says he is. The result? Anyone, whether they be from the US or anywhere else, could donate as much as they wanted without having it disclosed. Simply put in a new name and address each time, and click send. I would bet that if someone actually investigated, they would find a large amount of money came from foreigners (which is illegal), and most of his money came from large donors.

[disgustedwithall]

Like many decent people, Daschle got caught in a bad system that is so corrupted by money "
Yep such stuff sounds good, but I would think the former CHAIR of finance com. just might have a bit more awareness.. Did not care much for D, citizens of the "state I so love". tossed him and like nearly ALL, R or D, when voted out, NEVER WENT BACK to those he so loved. R or D, once they take the DC version of "Power meth" they become (well paid) addicted junkies. We need term limits for them ALL or we end up with a ruling class not to dissimilar to a monarch with Lords, Ladies, Barons etc and their money changers, as in DC to NYC corridors.

[mwm4756]

WOW!! AND I THOUGHT THE REPUBLICANS WERE CORRUPT!!

[evalsinca]

Mr Trippi: Your solution is crap and is focused on the election. Your premise is this: If a squeaky clean guy gets elected with millions of small donors, then he is not beholden to anybody and he can govern with the good of the people at heart.

This is well intentioned but fundamentally misses two key points:

1) To govern the politician needs staff. And staff can be bought and sold as we have seen in the various scandals exuding from Washington of late.

2) The corruption comes AFTER the election when the once-squeaky clean politician succumbs to corporate blandishments (like aircraft, paid vacations, etc.).

You are right that the answer is to take money out of the system. But where you are wrong is to suggest that we should take money out of the elections. Instead, we should take money out of the hands of the Congress.

By the way, this is not a revolutionary idea --- it is indeed buried in the heart of our beloved Constitution. Ours is supposed to be a limited government. The government, the Founders realized, needs to be limited not because of some right-wing nutty idealogy but because as government became bigger, both its capacity to do good becomes less efficient and second the corruption grows.

For a wonderful exposition on this essential principle of limited government read "Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek.

[cam]

Are you saying we shouldn't take corporate money out of the elections?

[ElIngeniero]

We're better off to sharply restrict the maximum donation to $250 for a political campaign. Outlaw corporate donations (corporations aren't people and can't vote, they should have fewer rights of speech). Outlaw any and all gifts to public employees. On top of that there needs to be a legitimate way to sharply turn up the volume with which voters speak, so we can be heard over third parties like 527s.

[NCRDIBULL]

Daschle of the "paying taxes is patriotic " party CHEATED , COMMITTED A FELONY , on his taxes.. He owed over $130,000 ( what income ?) He paid because he was caught and NO FINES... you might convince progressives this is ok but not the working Americans....How much health care insurance premiums for those who can't afford it could $130,000 buy ?

[ceindependence]

Trippi, daschle, giethner and even Obama give on a silver platter, ammunition to the conservatives arguments. Over and over they aim carefully and shoot their own toes off. They destroy any credibility the democrats may have by defending, supporting and appointing liars and tax cheats.

Obama already lied about bringing change to Washinton by appointing Geithner. Which means if he lied once, he will do so again. So will the next lie be over the stimulas bill? Or will the next lie be over national security? Now every time I listen to him speak I will have to wonder is he lying this time or telling the truth.

If your spouse lies to you, do you continue to believe them? We all know the answer to that question! Obama did it in the first two weeks in office. Wow,

[fernandez86]

Your comments are outrageous! Maybe you should find another Blog to write about!

[Vitaman203]

Daschle, not only as a senator, but minority and even majority leader, had unlimited opportunity to change the situation for the good of ALL people. Instead he took the opportunity to capitalize on it for his own personal gain. So now we had Joe "The Politicians Excuser" Tripper trying to sell us "But like many other good and decent people, Daschle got caught in a bad system ...". BS.

[FernandoRuiz]

Doesnt it take the rest of Congress to pass legislation? Honestly, what Republicans are going to want to stop taking gifts from corporate interests, then they'll have no reason to "serve" in government.

[scooperss]

He cheated on his taxes. I make no excuse for him or any of the others.

You don't get to break what laws you don't like just because you have an *in* at the exclusive table.

[onceler]

I don't really buy it, sorry. Am I supposed to believe that all of the various insurance companies who paid Tom Daschle millions of dollars and did him millions of favors, were doing so because they were hoping he would one day reform them and limit their profit margins?

Unfortunately, Daschle's mission has never been to get more people health care, it has been to get more customers for those corrupt, greedy, at times murderous insurance companies. I don't want someone at the head of HHS who is as comfortable with these companies as Daschle is, he would have been in no position to look them in the eye and tell them their business model was over.

[Aaror]

A question.
"Who owns the airwaves?"
If the answer is "the people," or even the government, I think there is an easier way to reform campaign contributions.
Right now we give away the airwaves, and TV and radio stations value those airwaves at billions of dollars. How about we just mandate that any channel that wants to use OUR airwaves has to give a small thing back.
Campaign commercials only run during one part of every other year (depends on the state, but you get the idea). Figure out how much is spent on TV and radio ads next year, and require TV and radio stations to provide that dollar figure of free ads to politicians in 2012, split 45-45-10 (45% to Dems and Repubs, 10% to independents and minor party members). Slap an "abuse clause," in there that punishes people for using the ads for non-political reasons (Hi, I'm Cal Worthington, and I'm running for president to give you a great value on a used car). The stations don't have to provide the ads, but if they don't, they lose their license to use our airwaves for free.
This gets around the "free speech," problem with all prior campaign finance laws. If you try to restrict how much money politicians can get, you get lobbyists trying to get around it, but if you provide enough funding that politicians don't need donors, they can work for us, not the deep pockets.

[TerryOakland]

Tom Daschle cheated on his taxes -- big time -- plain and simple. He knew it, he did it, then he claimed it a "mistake," and the likes of Joe Trippi defend him, decrying the "system." Crap. I'm a liberal Democrat and would love to have someone with Daschle's experience leading HHS. But as a liberal Democrat I am not going to defend tax cheats and lairs.

A few years ago, when the economy was rolling swimmingly, my wife and I gave her mom a car as a gift. Even we, who have never been elected to Congress or led the Senate (let alone write tax code), knew that we had to declare the gift on our tax returns. That was a simple Toyota, not a private limo and driver worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Either Daschle knew he was cheating, or he is a complete dolt.

The same goes for Tim Geithner. He slipped through. Too bad.

Clean up your team, Barack. We need you to succeed for us!

[fernandez86]

I, too hope that our President has learned from this mistake! I think he will do good things, but even those people (like Hillary Clinton) who touted their experience could have made the same mistakes! He's owned up to it and now, as Americans, we have to help him put this country on the right track. We can and we must do it! Our future lives depend on it!!