LANSING – Almost two months ago in his State of the State address, Governor Rick Snyder called for campaign finance reforms, but none have made it to his desk so far. Specifically, Snyder said he wanted to have better and more frequent disclosure of campaign contributions.
Legislators do not have disclose fundraising or spending activity in non-election years until late January of the following year and many have called for the state going to a congressional-style system that requires candidates to disclose their activity on a quarterly basis.
Rich Robinson, executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network said that when the annual campaign finance reports were released about a week after Mr. Snyder’s address, it was the first time in 14 months that state lawmakers had to disclose who gave them money. And in that time, there were hundreds of fundraisers and about $6 million was raised.
“That’s just not adequate timeliness,” he said.
Robinson said he was thrilled to hear that portion of Snyder’s speech, saying he was the first governor since William Milliken to express any concern about the issue.
“My hope is if the governor puts some of his prestige on the line, we might have a real opportunity to make a difference,” he said.
But there doesn’t appear to be much movement in that direction. A Senate package of campaign finance bills that were approved ignored that aspect and Rep. Pete Lund (R-Shelby Township), chair of the House Redistricting and Elections Committee, said he has not heard from the administration about any particular bills or ideas it would like to see pushed this year. The Senate bills are SB 750 , SB 751 , SB 752 , SB 753 , SB 754 , SB 755 , SB 803 , SB 823 , SB 824 and SB 825 .
Snyder’s communications director, Geralyn Lasher, said the governor would like to see it get done this year, but did not have a specific timetable in mind.
She said Snyder is not set on having lawmakers report quarterly, but wants to have a discussion about increasing the frequency.
“Certainly more than the level we are at,” she said.
There are numerous other flaws in the laws though, Robinson said, most noticeably, regarding spending on issue ads.
On the bottom of the cover of the 2010 citizen’s guide to Michigan’s campaign finance there is a warning label that looks as if it came off a pack of cigarettes. It reads; “undisclosed political spending is a threat to democracy and the public interest.”
Robinson, who puts out the guide, said the threat grows larger each election cycle. Since 2000, more than $70 million has been spent on issue ads on television stations around the state, but none of the spending has been disclosed.
“Our disclosure system is just missing a lot of what is going on,” Robinson said.
Because those types of ads – which do not specifically advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate – are not considered campaign expenditures, they don’t fall under the state’s laws of campaign finance reporting.
The amount is known because Robinson travels around the state and compiles the information from the public files at the individual television broadcasters and cable systems.
But, he said, even when he can find a way to show how much money is in the system’s blind spot, there is no law that allows the public to see who or what special interests contributed to those groups to pay for the ads.
In the 2010 election, more than $20 million was spent on issue ads for the major statewide races, about a third of all spending in those races.
When the House Democrats recently unveiled a package of campaign finance reforms, Robinson said he was saddened to see it did not address issue ads.
“It explicitly went around the idea of electioneering communications,” Mr. Robinson said.
Tom Shields, president of the Marketing Resource Group firm, said both Democrats and Republicans see an advantage in having the option of using issue ads.
“I doubt we’ll ever see any type of reporting on issue advocacy,” Shields said. “There’s been a fairly long history and place for them in Michigan politics.”
Lund said the problem with regulating issue ads is the First Amendment, but overall he believes in transparency.
“I think it’s a good policy to put your name on what you say, but that doesn’t mean the government can force you to do it,” he said.
Robinson has been leading the call for years for campaign finance reform, but the lawmakers who benefit from keeping the system as it is never make the big changes he feels are necessary, he said.
Not everyone sees this as a problem though.
“The fundamental problem with campaign finance reform is the Constitution and 30 years of litigation,” said Steve Linder, a partner with the Sterling Corporation, and one of the more prolific Republican fundraisers in town.
Linder has raised close to $500 million for candidates, causes, issues and associations since becoming a professional fund-raiser in 1978.
He said there is no proof that money has a corrupting influence in politics, suppresses voter turnout or only leads to rich people getting elected.
“There is not a shred of evidence,” he said.
If true, Dick DeVos would have won the 2006 gubernatorial election, not Jennifer Granholm, Linder said.
With issue ads, he said people make decisions based on the issue, not on who gave the money.
A problem with disclosure of such ads involves groups that have multiple issues for which they advocate. He said if someone writes a check because they believe in one cause the group is fighting for, but not another, should that person’s name be disclosed as a donor for an ad that advocates for something they oppose?
“That’s just a hazard that contributor faced,” Robinson said.
If the state was going to make changes to its campaign finance laws, Linder said he would suggest eliminating contribution limits. Putting limits on how much a person can donate only moves more of the power of fundraising to third-party groups, he said.
“Let (people) give whatever they want as long as it is disclosed,” he said.
He would support moving to a quarterly reporting system or even real-time reporting of contributions.
Rep. Barb Byrum (D-Onondaga), minority vice chair of the House Redistricting and Elections Committee, said the state needs to clean up its elections and have even more disclosure.
“We need to make sure our campaigns are more transparent,” she said.
Byrum said the issue of political robocalls is another that is talked about each year, but nothing is ever done. Candidates for state office, and groups advocating for or against candidates for state office, do not have include a disclaimer in the call of who paid for the call.
“People are calling for it, they want to know who is paying for these ads,” she said. “I hope we can have more disclosure. I think we need to get at those corporate dollars that are funneling in.”
Editor’s note: This story was produced in a collaboration between Gongwer News Service and Bridge Magazine
.a>>
