Max Baucus Has a Challenger. Can he compete financially?

Roll Call this morning broke the news that former Montana State Senator and 2012 gubernatorial candidate, Corey Stapleton, is running for the chance to take on Democratic Senator Max Baucus. Stapleton came in second place behind eventual nominee Rick Hill with 18 percent of the vote in June's primary. Some have said that Stapelton's showing was surprising in that he eked out well-known conservative Ken Miller by a bit more than 100 votes. Here's a copy of his web announcement:



Stapleton served as a state senator, so political scientists would label him a quality challenger. He has three important hurdles to overcome. First, I'm sure his name recognition went up during the gubernatorial campaign, but Montanans likely still don't know him well. Second, he'll have to clear the field of other Republican candidates--and to do so he'll have to raise a substantial sum of money quickly to demonstrate his seriousness as a candidate. The third challenge is overcoming the significant money advantage Max Baucus already has should Stapleton get the Republican nomination. Roll Call recently released the fourth quarter FEC filings for incumbents, which I retweeted yesterday. The link is here. Senator Baucus raised $611,000 in that quarter and is sitting on nearly $3.6 million in cash. Of the Democratic incumbents listed in competitive elections, only Senator Landrieu (D-LA) raised more (and she raised just north on $1 million). Of the Democratic incumbents listed, only Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) had more cash on hand ($3.7 million). If Max Baucus can match Senator Tester's fundraising, expect to see those quarterly numbers to jump above the $1 million mark soon. Tester raised $13 million for the 2012 campaign. I expect we'll see Max match or likely exceed that number.

To be competitive, Stapleton need not raise more than Baucus. He only needs to raise enough--probably in the neighborhood of $10 million. Can he do it and can he clear the field of other Republican challengers? We'll see.

Citizens United: The Good, The Bad, and the Mostly Ugly

Three years ago this week, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United. Two election cycles later, it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of that momentous decision for electioneering specifically and the representative process more generally. As both a scholar of congressional elections and as an active observer of the recently concluded Montana Senate race—which saw more than 90,000 television advertisements aired over a fivemonth period—I have a unique perspective to share. The decision written by Justice Kennedy was momentous in how it transformed the political landscape, but the effects are not all bad as some contend.

First, the good news. Generally speaking, campaigns are about disseminating information to a generally disinterested and disengaged electorate. Money spent on advertising provides information to voters, and the more information voters receive, the more likely they are to participate in the political process. Many voters express disgust with the sheer amount of advertising in an election, but the simple fact of the matter remains that competitive elections with lots of spending generate more voter interest and involvement. One of the benefits of campaigning in the world of Citizens United is there are more avenues for information to reach the voter because anyone can—and has—form a group to raise and spend money to influence elections. For example, in the Montana Senate race alone, more than $50 million was spent during the campaign cycle. Of that amount, less than half was spent by Democratic and Republican candidates. The rest was spent by political parties and various 501s. The result of all that information? A rich and thick information environment. More voters cast ballots in the Senate race than in the presidential race (not a single ad aired for either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama in Montana), demonstrating that more information reduces the barrier to participation and helps voters make decisions.

More money equals more political information, but is all that information beneficial to democratic process? One of the very clear downsides of the Citizens United decision is increased access to the campaign process has led to a lack of control by the candidates, political parties, and citizens who have to live with the results after Election day. Money does matter in elections, especially when one side has superior financial resources and employs them in an otherwise low information environment election. Consider the case of California’s 35th district. Because of California’s primary law that allows the top two vote getters to move onto the general election, two Democratic candidates faced off in the general election: incumbent Congressman Joe Baca and State Senator Gloria Negrette McLeod.  One of the most important voting cues is party identification, but in this instance that cue did not differentiate the candidates. Joe Baca, the incumbent, was widely anticipated to win the election and yet, at the very last moment, Mayor Bloomberg’s Independence USA PAC dropped more than $3.3 million into the race on mailers and television attacking Baca. Why? Because Baca was supported by the NRA and voted against gun control measures. When voters were paying attention they received a considerable information boost from all of this money and a sure bet for Baca was turned into a loss. Citizens United increases the ability to use money to influence elections—especially by outside groups.

The most troubling aspect of Citizens United is not that labor unions and corporations can spend money on electioneering and issue advocacy, as some suggest. It is the complete and utter lack of transparency in the Citizens United world. This is certainly ironic, given the fact that Justice Anthony Kennedy himself wrote in his decision that “prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters”. The fact of the matter is we, the voters, have no idea who the groups peddling information to us are and we don’t know which individuals support them. Congress and the Federal Election Commission have been unable and unwilling to act by establishing disclosure rules for the sundry 501s engaged in electioneering activities outside of the 60 day window of before an election. Citizens can find out how much money is spent on television or radio advertising if they care to visit those stations in person by requesting the political file—a daunting task in Montana, where stations are spread across thousands of miles. Of course, there’s still all the money spent on grassroots organization, Internet advertising, and phone calls outside of that sixty day window—how much and by whom, we may never know. Some groups, like the Sunlight Foundation, are doing yeoman's work tracking as much of the dark money as they can, but there's only so much even they can do with their resources to track down everything.

Although attorney Jim Bopp’s assertion in a recent Frontline special about dark money that most voters don’t care about where that money is coming from is likely true, the consequences of anonymous speech for political discourse are troubling and should cause voters to take notice. Anonymity breeds bad behavior. Hiding behind the veil of secrecy, groups and individuals are more likely to be more negative and play more fast and loose with the facts than if they were held responsible for their actions. We saw it time and again during this election cycle. Groups set up shop with a P.O. Box, launch a bunch of scurrilous attacks, and then disappear. Fact of the matter is these groups are accountable to no one, unlike the candidates and political parties who must put the pieces back together and try to govern after elections. The stealthy nature of these organizations make it less likely for candidates and parties to take risks and compromise for fear they will be brutally assaulted out of nowhere in the next election cycle.

No Transparency? More Negative and More Nasty Ads

Unregulated Speech: From an ad sponsored by the Now or Never PAC

Nasty speech: From an Internet ad sponsored by the American Bridge to the 21st Century

At the end of the day, Citizens United—as a decision—opened the floodgates to more money and more information in the political process. Whether that information is good and beneficial to democratic discourse is an open question, however, when juxtaposed against the very fact that much of the information flooding the system is peddled by groups with no responsibility to the political process or the hard task of governing in an environment that has become increasingly fragmented and polarized—in large part because of the money raised and spent by these very groups. At the end of the day, I live in a state where the Senate race was decided in part by the millions of dollars raised and spent by outsiders who never met Jon Tester or Denny Rehberg, and are not accountable to Montanans. In a state that is suspicious and often resentful of the influence of outside interests, this should be very troubling indeed.

Hidden Returns on Congressional Pay

In his last post Dr. Parker argues against the popular notion of refusing pay increases for members of Congress.[1] I agree with his position that it is largely a “feel good” ploy by the Tea Party and others to pander to our ever declining opinion of those in DC doing the people’s business however, let’s apply some basic behavioral economics to the issue.

First, realize that after 22 years in office a congressman is eligible for a pension payment of around $85,000 per year. Right now, the average term in office is about five years. In 2002, the pension payment ranged from $41,000 to $55,000. Not very much when you consider the expense of a second home in the DC area and the cost of campaigning.

Let’s look at this another way. The average age of members of the House at the beginning of the 112th Congress was 56.7 years - young enough for a second, if short, career. The overwhelming majority of members have a college education – typically a law degree or business background. When the status of a member of the House changes from member to former member what to they do? They mostly move into the lobbying game where they earn very large amounts of money cashing in on their expertise and rolodex as they represent often the very interests they regulated while holding elected office. The classic revolving door.

Viewed this way, the rational thing to do is “invest” in your congressional “education” for about the same amount of time it took to get your law degree and then go for the higher return on investment by starting a new career working on K Street.

Two other things. Keep in mind the overwhelming majority of House members are already wealthy. For example, the median net worth in 2009 of a House representative was more than 2.5 times more than it was in 1984 — $725,00 vs. $280,000 — adjusted for inflation (one interesting fact - our own Congressman Denny Rehburg enjoys a net worth in upwards of $56 million. Out of 535 members of Congress, he is richer than more than 95% of his Capitol Hill colleagues). The other thing to keep in mind is that while leftover campaign funds cannot be used for personal gain, FEC regulations require leftover campaign funds be returned to donors, transferred to a political party or candidate, or donated to charity. Of course generous donations are rewarded with board appointments, jobs, the ubiquitous lobbying contract and, (tell me it isn’t so) even university appointments.

Any way you look at it, serving in the House for even a short period of time has potentially high rates of payoff. The only logical solution to this and other inequities in the current political system is public finance of public elections.

---

[1] According to the State Department’s Office of Protocol, there is no such title as Congressman for members of the House of Representatives. Rather, they are supposed to be referred to by their social title (that is Mr. or Ms., or Dr., Mrs., or Miss as preferred). I realize this is a small matter but civilization runs smoother with recognition of social niceties. By the way, Wikipedia has this completely wrong.

Tester Tells Rehberg: No Thanks

The Tester camp rejected Congressman Rehberg's Made in Montana pledge late yesterday. Rather than provide an analysis and commentary, I'll simply post the Tester campaign's press release and let you judge for yourself.

Rehberg rejects Tester’s plan to keep third-party ads out of Montana

Out-of-state organization spends another $190,000 attacking Tester

BILLINGS, Mont. – Montanans for Tester campaign manager Preston Elliott today released the following statement after Congressman Dennis Rehberg rejectedJon Tester’s proposal to keep all third-party TV and radio attack ads out of Montana:

“Jon offered Congressman Rehberg a simple, good-faith effort to keep secretly funded ads out of this race, and Congressman Rehberg rejected it because he's relying on these ads as we speak.”

Elliott added that Rehberg’s “response” to Tester’s proposal was “just more dishonest politics” from Rehberg designed only to keep third-party, out-of-state TV ads running on Rehberg’s behalf.

“Montanans can't trust Congressman Rehberg to keep his promises. He gave himself five pay raises after campaigning against them, he hid tens of thousands of dollars he's taken from lobbyists, and he's broken every clean campaign pledge he's signed. Montanans won't fall for yet another promise Congressman Rehberg knows he can't keep.”

Immediately after Tester’s proposal last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—a secretly funded organization not affiliated with local chambers of commerce—spent another $190,000 on TV ads in Montana attacking Tester (fact check HERE).

Below is a summary of why Montanans can’t trust Dennis Rehberg. A full reports is available online HERE.

Rehberg promised Montanans no pay raises for himself…

Rehberg Promised Never to Vote for a Pay Raise. In a 1996 campaign ad, Rehberg said he “has never voted for a pay raise, and [he] never will.” [Rehberg Campaign Ad]

Rehberg Flier Claimed He Had Never Voted for or Taken a Pay Raise – And Never Would. In a 1996 campaign flier, Rehberg boasted, “Rehberg has never voted for or taken a pay raise and he never will.” [Rehberg 1996 Campaign Flier]

2000: Rehberg Promised to Oppose Pay Increases. In 2000, Rehberg “said he has always opposed pay increases as an elected official and would do so in Congress.” [Helena Independent Record, 10/12/00]

…Then he voted for five of them

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay by $3,300 in 2006. In 2006, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $3,300 to $168,500.Rehbergvoted to kill an amendment that would block an automatic pay hike for members of Congress. By killing the attempt to block the pay raise, Rehberg voted to receive a 2 percent increase and an annual salary of $165,200. The effort to block the anti-pay raise amendment passed 249-167. (H RES 865, Vote #261, 6/13/06; Congressional Research Service, Salaries for Members of Congress: Congressional Votes) NOTE: This pay raise was later blocked by the Democratic Congress in 2007.

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay $3,100 in 2005. In 2005, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $3,100 to $165,200. Rehberg voted in favor of a measure intended to prevent the introduction of an amendment blocking an increase in the annual salary for House members by $3,100 to $165,000. The House blocked a bid by Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT) to force an up-or-down vote on the pay raise. The effort to block the anti-payraise amendment passed 263-152. (HR 342, Vote #327, 6/28/05)

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay by $4,000 in 2004.In 2004, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $4,000 to $162,100. Rehberg voted in favor of a motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on adoption of the rule to provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would appropriate $89.8 billion in fiscal 2005 for the departments of Treasury and Transportation and related agencies. If the motion had been defeated, an amendment to block the Congressional pay raise would have been allowed. The motion passed 235-170. (H Res 770, Vote #451, 9/14/04)

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay by $3,400 in 2003.In 2003, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $3,400 to $158,100. Rehberg voted in favor of a motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on adoption of the rule to provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would appropriate $89.6 billion in fiscal 2004 spending, including $27.5 billion in discretionary spending, for the departments of Treasury and Transportation and related agencies. If the motion had been defeated, an amendment to block the Congressional pay raise would have been allowed. The motion passed 240-173. (H. Res. 351, Vote #463, 9/4/03)

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay by $4,700 in 2002. In 2002, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $4,700 to $154,700. Rehberg voted in favor of a motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on adoption of the rule to provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would appropriate $35.1 billion in fiscal 2003 Treasury-Postal appropriations. If the motion had been defeated, an amendment to block the Congressional pay raise would have been allowed. The motion passed 258-156. (H. Res. 488, Vote #322, 7/18/02)

Rehberg hid tens of thousands of dollars in lobbyist money

HEADLINE – Rehberg’s Lobbyist Cash Unreported. [Helena Independent Record, 2/6/2012]

HEADLINE – Rep. Rehberg Under Fire After Report Uncovers Lobbyist Contributions. [The Hill, 2/5/12]

Rehberg’s Campaign “Took A Hit” After Discovery Of Unreported Lobbyist Contributions. In February 2012, The Hill reported: “Montana congressman Denny Rehberg's bid to unseat Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) took a hit Sunday after the Associated Press uncovered lobbyist contributions to the Republican hopeful's campaign.” [The Hill, 2/5/12]

Rehberg’s Campaign Received About $20,000 From Three Dozen Undisclosed Lobbyists. In February 2012, The Hill reported: “The AP reports that Rehberg's campaign received about $20,000 through October from three dozen lobbyists who didn't reveal their place of employment on federal disclosure records. The revelation could hurt Rehberg because he has relentlessly attacked Democratic first-termer Tester for being the top recipient of lobbyist campaign funding.” [The Hill, 2/5/12]

Rehberg violated campaign pledges he signed

Rehberg Signed Clean Campaign Pledge in 1996… Then Broke It. On June 27, 1996, Rehberg and Sen. Max Baucus signed a Clean Campaign Pledge to “maintain the highest ethical and moral standards in the conduct of my campaign” with a positive campaign focused on the issues. [Rehberg Clean Campaign Pledge, 6/27/1996]

Rehberg Signed Pledge in 1996, Later Violated the Promise. As reported by the Billings Gazette, “In 1996, Sen. Max Baucus and Republican challenger Denny Rehberg signed a pledge, but that didn't prevent acrimony. By autumn, the candidates were accusing one another of violating the promise and arguing over how to word a letter urging supporters to behave. [Billings Gazette, 6/8/2004]

2000 Senate opponent: Rehberg Violated Clean Campaign Pledge. In October 2000, the Great Falls Tribune reported: "In recent days, both Republican Denny Rehberg and Democrat Nancy Keenan have proclaimed that the other candidate violated the clean campaign pledge each signed in April." According to the report, "Keenan entered the fray Wednesday, saying she is 'outraged at an offensive and misleading' television ad 'run in coordination with Dennis Rehberg's campaign' questioning her commitment to safe schools and a positive learning environment. She was referring to an ad claiming she opposed notifying teachers when a student has been convicted of a criminal offense and that she supported Playboy magazine in school libraries. Keenan demanded Rehberg pull the 'misleading and untrue ad,' and charged that he 'has reverted back to the negative tactics that were the hallmark of his failed bid for the U.S. Senate in 1996' against U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont." [10/5/00]

Keenan Accused Rehberg Of Breaking Clean Campaign Pledge, Said That Montanans "Expect More From This Campaign." In October 2000, PBS reported: "Keenan argued that as school superintendent she was constitutionally prevented from banning books and magazines. She accused Rehberg of misrepresenting her record and breaking their clean-campaign pledge. In a letter to Rehberg, she fired back, saying Montanans "expect more from this campaign than the typical political mudslinging that dominated your '96 Senate campaign." [PBS, 10/26/00]

###