“When the search warrants in this case were executed nearly a year ago, there was talk about the State House being ‘the People’s House.’ I agree completely. The People’s House should be occupied by elected officials who hold office to serve the people, not themselves,” said US Attorney Peter Neronha in a statement. “As federal and state prosecutors, and federal and state law enforcement officials, we represent the people of the United States and the people of Rhode Island. And we will go anywhere – anywhere – we can lawfully go to obtain the evidence we need to protect their interests.”
Fox, who was said to be the most powerful politician in the state, is accused of using campaign funds for personal expenses. Court documents show he transferred $108,000 from campaign accounts to personal accounts and spent the money at stores such as TJ Maxx, Tiffany’s, Walmart, or on mortgage and car payments.
“Often the balances in Fox’s personal accounts, including his law office account, were insufficient to cover his and his partner’s monthly expenses,” according to court documents. “The amounts that Fox transferred were typically utilized in one week, often days, to pay various bills.”
Court indicate money was transferred from campaign accounts starting in 2008 through 2014.
Fox is also accused of accepting a $50,000 bribe for help obtaining a liquor license in 2008 when he served on the Providence Board of Licenses, an accusation Attorney General Peter Kilmartin said came to light after the raid of Fox’s office.
“During the investigation, when the evidence of the bribery was discovered, the state possessed the prosecutorial tools necessary to move forward with this charge,” Kilmartin said in a press release. “It was that need and the state’s ability to move forward which helped secure a just resolution today.”
According to court documents, Fox will agree not to use as a defense the fact that the alleged bribe is beyond its statute of limitations.
Fox was first elected to office in 1992. In 2010, he was elected speaker of the House. He was the first openly gay house speaker in the country.
]]>Today we wrote letters to the party nominees and asked them to negotiate another Pledge. While we didn’t literally offer our table again, we stand ready to facilitate a negotiation between the candidates. Last time we called for a Pledge we were armed with evidence from the Scott Brown-Elizabeth Warren U.S. Senate race. Common Cause research showed that the Pledge reduced the amount of negativity, the amount of undisclosed money, and increased the percentage of small dollar donors. Now we have evidence from Rhode Island that the Pledge keeps outside money out of the race. And there is a great survey by Lake Survey Partners showing bi-partisan support for the People’s Pledge.
Let’s hear from the candidates between now and November 4th and insist on a People’s Pledge!
]]>In an age awash with political money, with Citizens United and related rulings giving more and more groups the opportunity to spend unlimited amounts of money and to hide the donors, How can it be that the Green Party of Rhode Island can not accept money that was donated by Rhode Islanders and is being returned to the Green Party in RI for party building activities? If this rule is not unconstitutional, it at least makes no sense in the current context.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas- who may go down as the worst justice in the history, went further writing that “all limits on campaigns contributions are unconstitutional.”
This makes the Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz article the 2011 Vanity Fair magazine article entitled “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%“, quite prescient:
“Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.”
So what’s the solution? Abel Collins offers this:
“We have the numbers. Let us freely assemble, muster our forces, and occupy politics from the bottom up. Put your name in the hat for city or town council. Start a blog, plan street theater, get arrested and be heard. By all means, we should start by reversing the effects of Citizens United. Municipal and statewide resolutions calling on Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to say that corporations aren’t people and political campaign spending isn’t protected speech can get the ball rolling. Amending State Constitutions via voter initiative or legislative referendum to this same effect as I have proposed in Rhode Island is another step. Whatever else, let us not cede the political sphere to the corporations, whether they are people in the eyes of the Supreme Court or not.”
At least it is one strategy, but considering the ethics of our state legislature it seems rather unlikely. Getting mass numbers assembled and engaged seems a more likely strategy to succeed. But can we do it? That is up to you.
(This video is from 10-8-13 #2 Abel & Noam Interview Part 2 Money as Free Speech Produced by Robert Malin c.2014)
]]>The New York Times called it “a sequel of sorts” to the highly controversial Citizens United ruling.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a staunch advocate for campaign finance reform in the other direction, said in an email, “This is a step in the wrong direction for democracy. With these limits now gone, wealthy donors will be able to give millions of dollars directly to candidates and political parties. Money is getting more and more of a voice in Washington, while the voices of hardworking American voters matter less and less in our elections.”
But Sam Bell, who is running for Gordon Fox’s seat in the House, said there’s at least some evidence that our democracy can survive without limits on campaign donations from individuals. Here’s what he wrote in an email:
Campaign finance laws will be completely gone soon enough. But I’d like to offer some words of comfort: Things are pretty bad right now. Big money already controls our politics. Sure, it’s going to get worse. But honestly, this is a battle we’ve already lost. Before you get too discouraged, I encourage everyone to take a look at Oregon and Virginia.
Oregon is a moderately blue state, one that Obama won by twelve points. Virginia, he won by 3 points. Democrats control the Oregon state legislature and governorship. In fact, Oregon was one of the first state legislatures to elect a progressive as Speaker (current US Senator Jeff Merkley). Democrats have the governorship and a razor-thin majority in the Virginia Senate, although the House is solid red. Compared to other swing states, that’s actually not so bad, especially considering Virginia only holds its elections in odd-numbered years, where Democrats are at an even worse turnout disadvantage. Those states aren’t such horror stories. And yet both of them have no campaign finance restrictions whatsoever. Corporations can actually give money directly to candidates. So even when things get much, much worse, all hope is not lost.
In total, 12 states have no limits on the amount of money individuals can give to candidates. They are: Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Virginia. See how all the state handle it here.
]]>“I support comprehensive campaign-finance reform,” Block said. “But I won’t do it piecemeal.” And a People’s Pledge wouldn’t address the disadvantage he’d face against incumbents such as Raimondo, “who has spent three full years as treasurer raising money for this race,” he said.
Something similar to “I won’t do it piecemeal” is a common refrain I hear among supporters of change or reform; most notably among left-wing opponents of the ACA (it didn’t go far enough!). I have no desire to rehash that particular battle, but suffice it to say, we have to deal in political realities, not political desires.
It’s a weird thing for a Republican candidate to oppose the People’s Pledge on the grounds of it doesn’t do enough to address the problem. Republicans of the Citizen’s United-era have been generally anti-campaign-finance reform. And if Block is keeping his previous position of “moderate,” a People’s Pledge would be in line with the model New England “moderate” Republican Scott Brown.
The argument that the Pledge is piecemeal is particularly flimsy. Citzen’s United has made the goals of the campaign-finance reform movement relatively unachievable; the striking down of McCain-Feingold’s section of unlimited corporate and union spending has made so-called “dark money” an increasing reality in all campaigns. And the People’s Pledge is proven to work at reducing that dark money spending.
Ideological stringency can be well and good. Refusing to support something over a matter of principle can be quite admirable. Opposing things as not going far enough when they would be ineffective or damaging is sensible. But this is neither of those cases. The Pledge notably advances the campaign-finance reform movement’s goals while providing proof to skeptical citizens that reform has an impact. Furthermore, while Block’s support of reform is proven and well-known, his ability to get it passed is non-existent. Democratic efforts, notably those under Rep. Chris Blazejewski, have been far more successful (unsurprisingly), though they often run into First Amendment issues and sometimes work indiscriminately when a targeted approach is called for.
One factor gone unsung in this is that the People’s Pledge has been a defining issue of the Democratic primary campaign, I think largely because the campaign-finance reform movement in the Democratic Party is far greater than that in the Republican Party (which is next to non-existent as far as I know). Block’s refusal to support it keeps him from supporting a “Democratic” issue, but also gives him space to keep up his usual attack line of the “ineffectiveness” of Democratic policies. However, it also provides the opening for Block’s primary opponent Allan Fung from having to take a stand on the Pledge one way or the other until the general election (should he beat Block, which seems likely).
As a final thought, Block’s criticism of Raimondo rings hollow. After all, what are we to believe Block was doing for the last three years, not preparing to run for governor?
]]>The approximately 200-mile trip is an effort to recruit New Hampshire residents to require presidential candidates to go on record as to how they will end corruption in Washington. Pretty simple, right?
The group, which calls itself the New Hampshire Rebellion, seems pretty serious about it. According to its website: “The NH Rebellion recognizes that New Hampshire is poised to be the tip of the spear in 2016 for the growing effort to end the system of corruption in Washington.”
McCarthy came by to borrow my sleeping bag, and here’s our conversation about his trip – unedited, just as he would want it published.
]]>Fast-forward to 2012 and incumbent Senator Scott Brown reached out to challenger Elizabeth Warren (read the actual correspondence) and challenged her to enter a People’s Pledge. Modeled after the Weld-Kerry agreement it included limits on outside spending (it’s notable that no one is talking about limiting total expenditures any more—Citizens United changed the political landscape and dialogue). After significant back and forth, both candidates signed on and even sent notice to third party groups and TV stations that might run their ads, warning them to stay out of the race.
Common Cause Massachusetts reported that the 2012 People’s Pledge did a great job at minimizing outside money in the Brown-Warren race when compared to similar races that year. We know that outside spending is overwhelmingly negative, can come from undisclosed sources, and can be raised in unlimited amounts. In 2013 when the Gomez-Markey race did not have a pledge outside spending from right and left came flooding back in.
So here we are in neighboring Rhode Island looking at the prospect of a very expensive Democratic primary, followed by a very short, but quite-possibly expensive, general election for governor in 2014. Typically races for governor aren’t fought on the national issues that draws outside groups into Senate races but that may be different this time.
Common Cause Rhode Island would like to see all candidates for governor negotiate a People’s Pledge. We mentioned the idea over a month ago when the first self-described Super PAC emerged. Sam Howard wrote about the idea at length on RI Future soon after. Quite frankly, we were waiting for the candidates to actually declare before we began to push for an agreement.
So now the cat is out of the bag. As a non-partisan group that does not engage in electioneering it would be easy to just let the topic die. We do not want to be seen as favoring any candidate over another. But this is too important a topic. Rhode Island deserves a campaign in 2014 that will focus on issues, not attacks. We deserve to know where the money that is backing the candidates is coming from. For those reasons we are asking the would-be candidates to meet and discuss this idea.
This won’t be easy. Massachusetts has demonstrated that these agreements might take some time to work out, but that they can work. Each candidate has strengths and weaknesses when it comes to campaign finance and the negotiations should address those. As the Supreme Court dismantles limits on money in politics (and next it might be limits on contributions directly to candidates) we need to look to alternatives. The People’s Pledge may be our best hope. Let’s give it a try.
]]>“We find that highly implausible,” wrote the RIPDA in a press statement released Friday. The Providence Journal filed this story based on the group’s announcement.
“We present very strong evidence that the money actually comes from the NRA’s national PAC,” said the release. “Not only is it illegal for national PACs to donate to a Rhode Island PAC (or candidate), but it is also illegal for any PAC to donate more than $1000 per annum to any other PAC. The NRA, we believe, violates both laws.”
Here’s a copy of the report that Sam Bell of the RIPDA filed with the state Board of Elections:
]]>To the Rhode Island Board of Elections
I write with concern over what I believe to be a large-scale ongoing violation of Rhode Island’s campaign finance laws by the NRA Political Victory Fund PAC.
The National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund (hereafter referred to as “NRA-Federal PAC”) is a national committee registered with the Federal Election Commission (ID Number C00053553) as a Separate Segregated Fund located in Fairfax, Virginia. In order to participate in elections in the State of Rhode Island, this organization has also registered a PAC with the Rhode Island Board of Elections (hereafter referred to as “NRA-RI PAC”).
There is reason to believe that NRA-RI PAC has been circumventing contribution disclosure rules as required by § 17-25-3(3). Specifically, NRA-RI PAC has failed to disclose any of the required donor information such as the name, address, and place of employment of a contributor as required by § 17-25-11(a)(3)(i). As such, it is impossible to tell whether NRA-RI PAC received excessive contributions of $1000 or more per annum from any individual or organization, as prohibited by § 17-25-10.1(a). NRA-RI PAC maintains a balance of $0 cash-on-hand at the end of each report.
It appears to raise precisely the amount that it spends each reporting period. Moreover, NRA-Federal PAC reports making the same exact contributions to candidates in Rhode Island that NRA-RI PAC does. It is therefore reasonable to question whether the funds that end up in the accounts of candidates in Rhode Island are derived directly from the national committee, NRA-Federal PAC, which is a source that is not permissible by Rhode Island law.
The strong evidence suggesting that these contributions are directly from NRAFederal PAC has several implications, the most important of which is the aforementioned issue that no donor information is disclosed to the public. Because federal law requires that only contributors aggregating over $200 (twice the Rhode Island threshold of $100) be disclosed, it is certain that many contributors required by RI law to be disclosed to the public never are, yet their contribution dollars influence the outcomes of elections in RI.
Moreover, because it is unclear which contributors to NRA-Federal PAC are subsequently earmarked for RI elections, it is impossible to know whether such contributions 1) exceed contribution limits (federal contribution limits are over twice as high as RI) and 2) are otherwise impermissible under RI law (federal law allows PACs to receive contributions from unregistered committees and organizations in amounts not exceeding $1000).
At the very least, this matter is worthy of further investigation by the RI Board of Elections. Never has the potential for large, national interests to disproportionately influence the outcomes of local elections been more prevalent. For that reason, it is necessary for the Board of Elections to be as unambiguous as possible in its execution of its campaign finance regulations.
As an example of the behavior described above, I have attached the reports from the first and second quarters of 2013 for NRA-RI PAC and a list of the associated NRAFederal PAC contributions. However, these practices appear to have persisted since at least the first quarter of 2002, the most recent report available in the online ERTS
In order to participate in elections in the State of Rhode Island, this reporting system. I have attached a summary of the contributions over this period from the ERTS system.
Under pain and penalty of perjury, I attest that the above statements are, to the best of my knowledge, fully accurate. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Samuel Wade Bell
Its unlikely Binder will knock Fox out of office, but he could help move him back toward the left side of the political spectrum. Or he could do just enough political damage to make it hard for him to retain the Speakers gavel, which might not be a good thing for progressives
Bob Plain, RI Progress ReportFox is more conservative than we’d like in a Speaker and Binder is less experienced than we’d like in a state Representative. Practically speaking, wheen factoring in both of these circumstances, the House of Representatives probably moves to the right if Binder were to upset Fox.
Bob Plain, RI Progress Report
This logic remind me of what a Mt. Hope voter said to me recently:
“I don’t think the government is broken. I think it’s working just fine for those who are in charge.”
As I’ve been knocking on doors throughout my district, the reception I have been getting is warm and congratulatory. People smile and thank me for running, especially against Gordon Fox. Then they say, “Do you think you have a chance?” I answer quite honestly, “If you and all the people you know vote for me, then I will win.”
Where is the Progressive in these issues?
Our legislature is dominated by fear. The Reps and Senators give away their power at the beginning of the session to the “leaders” and then beg for crumbs.
They cower in fear in the halls of the legislature and then crow when the leaders give them a line item in the budget or let one of their proposals rise from the black hole of committee. They whisper and confer and suspend the rules and vote on bills that most of them haven’t read. This is called “hardball politics.”
How’s that working for our state? The other day at the gym, a guy on a treadmill joked that every year the legislature passes lots of election bills because they always seems to benefit the legislators.
What else benefits the legislators? They get campaign contributions from special interests, and then submit bills, vote on bills and push bills through that benefit those special interests.
And it’s all out there in the public record.
Are these really all coincidences? Who benefits from contributions to Gordon Fox’s $200,000+ campaign slush fund? Voters? Taxpayers?
Was this a move to the right or the right move?
Meanwhile, Fox has bought into the Conservative dogma that raising taxes is bad for business and good for government. And he’s given the Casinos a sweetheart deal that means taxpayers will have to loose three times as much at table games as they do at the slots just for the State to break even on what it gets now.
How’s that all going for us?
Is Speaker Fox retaining the gavel really doing the Progressives any benefit? Is having Gordon Fox in the House benefitting the people in District Four?
I think it’s clear that our “representatives” haven’t been working for us. They have been working for each other and for their special interests.
In Gordon Fox’s case, he’s been working hard for his business associates, former Speakers, and for the campaign contributors. For the people in his district? Not so much.
I will be honored if you vote for me, and help knock them out.
]]>