SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
campaign finance
'New Year's Eve Ethics Massacre': House Panel Quietly Drops Campaign Finance Probes
One analyst said the House Ethics Committee has "effectively legalized the conversion of campaign funds for personal use."
Jan 02, 2025
The bipartisan House Ethics Committee announced earlier this week that it unanimously opted to close several investigations involving alleged campaign finance violations by three Republicans and one Democrat, a move that one expert characterized as a "New Year's Eve Ethics Massacre."
The decision to close the investigations into Reps. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Wesley Hunt (R-Texas), Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), and Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) was made public in a vaguely worded press release published the day before New Year's Eve.
The panel, composed of five Republicans and five Democrats, said while "there was evidence" that lawmakers who were under investigation "did not fully comply with the applicable standards relating to personal use of campaign funds," the committee determined there wasn't proof that "any member intentionally misused campaign funds for their personal benefit."
The committee also criticized Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules pertaining to personal use of campaign funds as "often ambiguous" and issued its own updated guidance for House members.
Additionally, the committee said it dropped "other confidential matters that have been under review," without offering specifics.
The committee said its only action in response to its findings was contacting the lawmakers to provide them with the updated campaign finance guidance "as well as specific findings and recommendations with respect to that member's campaign activity."
"The New Year's Eve Ethics Massacre is a repudiation of the Ethics Committee's job to hold members of Congress to account for their wrongdoing."
Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute, argued that the panel's decision "effectively legalized the conversion of campaign funds for personal use by members of the House of Representatives" by establishing "a new weak standard" and ignoring evidence of wrongdoing provided by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).
"They can now take dollars from donors and put them in their pocket," Schuman wrote in his newsletter. "It's not what they said they did, but under the cover of the New Year's holiday, Ethics Committee Democrats and Republicans pulled a fast one, legalizing a money laundry so blatantly corrupt it would embarrass Walter White. They also made many other allegations of wrongdoing disappear."
Schuman noted that the committee's probes into Bishop, Mooney, Hunt, and Jackson stemmed from OCE reports on each of the lawmakers dating back to 2020. Republicans have repeatedly targeted the OCE and are currently trying to drop "ethics" from its name.
In the case of Mooney, Schuman wrote, the OCE found in October 2021 that he "used campaign funds to purchase more than $17,000 in gift cards in violation of FEC rules and had the effect of concealing the ultimate recipient of those funds (which may have been Rep. Mooney's pocket)."
The West Virginia Republican said in a statement that he was "grateful" for the House Ethics Committee's decision and dismissed allegations of misconduct as "driven by politically motivated actors on the extreme left."
As for Bishop—the lone Democrat among the four lawmakers who faced House Ethics Committee probes—the OCE found on February 10, 2020 that he "may have improperly disbursed campaign funds for personal use and improperly spent his official member funds for annual holiday parties in the district," Schuman noted.
"Among the inappropriate costs incurred were golf club memberships, the purchase of golf clubs, brunch for family members, groceries, and so on," Schuman added.
"The ethics process is broken," he concluded. "There must be an independent ethics process where investigations and their recommendations are divorced from internal party politics and not designed to shield members from accountability for apparent wrongdoing. The New Year's Eve Ethics Massacre is a repudiation of the Ethics Committee's job to hold members of Congress to account for their wrongdoing and to be honest and forthright to the public about their behavior."
Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, echoed Schuman's assessment, arguing in a statement that by "summarily dismissing all charges of potential violations of ethics rules, the House Ethics Committee is shirking its responsibilities to both the House of Representatives and the American public."
"The press release from the Ethics Committee hinted that violations may have indeed occurred with personal use of campaign funds ('a gray area' and 'did not fully comply' with the rules, stated the release) and avoided any discussion of the other allegations, but dismissed the charges nonetheless," said Holman.
Lisa Gilbert, Public Citizen's co-president, added that the decision "is further evidence that the House Ethics Committee, on its own, is too embedded with members of Congress to adequately enforce ethics rules."
"A fair and impartial congressional ethics process needs the public awareness and oversight provided by the outside Office of Congressional Ethics," Gilbert said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Need to Tax the Rich So Much More': Musk Spent Quarter of a Billion Backing Trump
"If your income was $274 million per year, you'd make more than 99.9% of Americans," wrote one activist. "Elon Musk spent that buying the 2024 elections for Republicans."
Dec 06, 2024
Federal filings released Thursday revealed that Elon Musk spent significantly more than previously known to help secure a second White House term for Donald Trump and boost GOP congressional candidates, making the world's richest man the nation's largest political donor and perhaps the most influential figure involved with the incoming administration.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings showed that Musk, the CEO of Tesla and owner of the social media platform X, spent around $270 million this year in support of super PACs backing Trump's reelection bid.
The filings also exposed Musk as the mysterious funding source behind RBG PAC, a Republican organization named after the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Musk pumped more than $20.5 million into the super PAC, which aimed to paint Trump as more moderate on abortion than other Republicans and falsely claimed Trump shared Ginsburg's views on reproductive rights.
"In reality, RBG unequivocally supported abortion rights, believing it was a fundamental matter of equality," notedRolling Stone's Andrew Perez. "Trump, on the other hand, pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to ban abortion—and his justices did just that. When Ginsburg died late in Trump's first term, he replaced her with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, creating a 6-3 conservative supermajority on the court that overturned Roe and ended the federal right to an abortion."
Musk's ability to convert his extreme wealth into political influence underscored the need for far higher taxes on the nation's economic elites, progressives said in response to the FEC disclosures. In 2018, Musk paid nothing in federal income taxes even as his wealth soared, largely due to Tesla stock appreciation.
"We need to tax the rich so much more," activist Jonathan Cohn wrote on social media. "Not just so that we can fund programs to benefit everyone, but to prevent them from rigging the political system in their favor."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, noted that "if your income was $274 million per year, you'd make more than 99.9% of Americans."
"Elon Musk spent that buying the 2024 elections for Republicans," she wrote. "Tax the oligarchs."
Musk's spending on the 2024 elections outpaced that of Timothy Mellon, the secretive heir to a Gilded Age fortune who pumped $197 million into races in support of Republican candidates, Bloombergreported.
"The clear story from the final federal campaign filings of 2024 is of the damage concentrated money in politics does to our elections," said Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert. "This includes being the sole backer of a super PAC that vandalized Ruth Bader Ginsburg's image to try and change Trump's public abortion position. Rich billionaires and corporate money simply ran the table in the 2024 election. They singlehandedly made the case for the aggressive campaign finance reforms we need to fix our system and get big money out of politics."
Musk, whose wealth jumped substantially following Trump's victory, is one of more than a dozen billionaires set to be either a member or close adviser to the incoming administration. The president-elect has tasked Musk and fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy with leading a commission whose goal is to gut federal regulations and slash spending.
"It's not hyperbole to call this a government of billionaires," Axiosreported Friday. "Trump's projected Cabinet alone is worth at least $10 billion... Trump's gilded Cabinet is the product of an election in which billionaires spent like never before in U.S. history—mostly on behalf of Republicans."
The billionaires in Trump's inner circle are set to play central roles in crafting policy over the next four years, including another tax-cut package that's expected to disproportionately benefit wealthy Americans. The 2017 Trump-GOP tax law that Republicans are looking to extend and expand helped boost the collective wealth of U.S. billionaires by over $2 trillion.
"The looters and polluters who are swarming around Trump bear careful watching," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said earlier this week. "Looks like no one's too rich to want to steal."
This story has been updated to include a statement from Public Citizen.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Politics Has Become the Fiefdom of Billionaires
At its core, the promise of democracy is “one man one vote”; but the attraction of capitalism is “one man many votes,” meaning the rich guys get the best things and lots of them, while the poor guy loses out.
Nov 08, 2024
Not that many people know that The Wizard of Oz, one of America’s most-loved films, is based on the arcane economic world of monetary policy. L Frank Baum’s novel is a disguised critique of the folly of the Gold Standard written in the wake of the 1896 election, at a time when America was deeply divided socially and geographically, when enormous power was wielded by a billionaire class, the so-called Robber Barons.
The election centred on whether America should swap the straitjacket of a gold-backed dollar for the looser cardigan of a silver-backed dollar. As gold is less plentiful and more expensive than silver, opting for a silver-backed currency would cause a devaluation that would inject more dollars into the economy, helping the poor.
The yellow bricks of the Yellow Brick Road, represent the gold bars which paved the way to the Emerald City, the city of green – or greenback, the colloquial term for the dollar. Dorothy represents the wholesome daughter of middle America, literally Kansas. The Scarecrow is the put-upon Midwestern farmer American and the Tin Man is the industrial worker.
Politically, the Democrats, in an alliance with a new party called the Popular Party, representing workers, farmers and the lower middle class, wanted a dollar backed by silver, meaning there would be more dollars around. In contrast, the Republicans represented industrialists, Wall Street and the wealthy, the kind of people who wanted to preserve their dollar wealth and maintain the Gold Standard.
With so much at stake and the country so explicitly divided along class lines, the rich opened their wallets and, for the first time, America’s election was truly swung by money. The Republicans won because they raised more cash.
William McKinley, the victorious Republican candidate, received contributions worth more than $16 million (about $600 million in today’s money). McKinley’s chief fundraiser, Mark Hanna, raised more than $6 million by courting corporations with the promise of a big-business-friendly agenda. Hanna is famously quoted as saying: “There are two things that are important in politics: the first is money and I can’t remember the second one”.
And who do you think the Wizard of Oz represented? Why, Mark Hanna the financier, hiding behind the slogans and conspiring against the ordinary American, embodied by the innocent Dorothy.
Whoever pays the money expects favors. Money buys policy. That is and always has been the deal.
The American political scene was set over a century ago. Money matters in American politics, and that adage of the Republicans being for sale while the Democrats are only for rent is no longer strictly accurate.
Today’s Democrats aren’t above a mutually beneficial deal and are in the pockets of big business as much as their opponents. The problem with big money and unrestrained capitalism in politics is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be pointed out, but suffice to say that it is inimical with a properly functioning democracy.
At its core, the promise of democracy is “one man one vote”; but the attraction of capitalism is “one man many votes,” meaning the rich guys get the best things and lots of them, while the poor guy loses out.
Capitalism and democracy are in a constant state of friction. The excesses of capitalism need to be tempered by the equalising nature of democracy; however, too much democracy and redistribution limit the “animal spirits” of capitalism upon which prosperity rests.
Modern western societies are a tug of war between these two alternating ideas where a balance is sought between both; sometimes it’s called social democracy, Christian democracy or centrism but it amounts to the same, a truce.
Unfortunately, the conditions of the truce are influenced by money, which is why big money in elections is problematic. As is the case in any indecent proposal, whoever pays the money expects favors. Money buys policy. That is and always has been the deal. American politics has become the fiefdom of billionaires, the effect of which can only be imagined.
We’ve all seen Elon Musk jumping around Trump’s rally with the physical co-ordination of a homeschooled kid who’s never seen a PE class, but Musk isn’t the only billionaire with a stake in the game. The two US presidential candidates had raised more than $3.8 billion by mid-October. A Financial Times analysis of campaign finance filings found that billionaires have donated at least $695 million, or about 18 per cent of the total. Trump is particularly dependent on US elites, with about a third of his money coming from billionaires compared with about 6 per cent of the funds raised by Harris.
Trump’s finance base is rich but narrow while Harris’s is more broadly based. From January 2023 to mid-October 2024, Joe Biden and Harris outraised Trump ($2.2 billion to Trump’s $1.7 billion). But the rich guys have placed their bets; at least 144 people on the list of 800 US billionaires compiled by Forbes have donated to either candidate.
Billionaires leaning toward Harris may seem incongruous as she often criticizes Trump for being too close to the plutocrats, but there are practical reasons why the ultra-wealthy may favor Harris.
As was the case in 1896, if you are rich you want stability – after all, you are doing well from the status quo. A letter signed by more than a dozen billionaires last month endorsing Harris explained their belief that she will “continue to advance fair and predictable policies that support the rule of law, stability, and a sound business environment”. In contrast, although he might cut their tax bills, Trump represents chaos and commotion, which is never good for business.
No matter whether the money comes from the liberal center or the tear-it-all-down libertarian right, it comes with a price, a sort of pay-to-play cover charge. If you want influence in America you pay for it.
In Europe, strict limits on campaign contributions help curb plutocratic influence. For example, the $1.6 billion Joe Biden spent to win the 2020 presidential election is 70 times more than the sum Emmanuel Macron spent on his 2022 win – despite the fact that the US population is just five times larger than that of France. The total spend across all 12 candidates in the French presidential race was just over €83 million. Germany – a country with more billionaires per head than America – enforces strict donation limits and transparency rules, with caps of €50,000 per donor, reducing the risk of policies favoring an elite few.
No matter whether the money comes from the liberal center or the tear-it-all-down libertarian right, it comes with a price, a sort of pay-to-play cover charge. If you want influence in America you pay for it.
Irish elections are subject to strict spending limits. Candidates running for the Dáil can only spend up to a maximum of €38,900 in a three-seat constituency, €48,600 in a four-seater and €58,350 in a five-seater. These numbers are paltry in the context of US elections, where there are no spending limits. In Ireland, donations from individuals or companies to a party are capped at €2,500 per year, while donations to individual candidates are limited to €1,000 per year.
After the alfresco political bribery of the Charlie Haughey and tribunal years, things are more above board and the days of rich guys buying elections in return for explicit special treatment are long gone. By way of contrast, the clear conflict between capitalism and democracy in America is there for all to see. As they say, the US is “the best democracy money can buy”, and the die was cast in 1896 with the election of William McKinley.
In those final days of the 19th century, with their man in the White House and tariffs erected to protect their businesses, America’s billionaire plutocrats must have felt unassailable. But following McKinley’s assassination by an anarchist in 1901, power moved to his vice-president, Teddy Roosevelt, who would turn on the very plutocrats who had financed his campaigns. Sensing that America yearned for equality after years of division and a decade of rich men lording it over the working man, Roosevelt brought the billionaires to heel, regulating them, taxing them and breaking up their monopolies.
A decade after buying the election, the billionaire class was on the skids, accused by Republican president Roosevelt of “predatory capitalism.” Fortunes turned dramatically. Political power slipped away from the plutocrats just when they thought victory was theirs.
Can history repeat itself? I wouldn’t bet against it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular