Tales Of Our Times: Parties Reap Dark Money From Their Own Members In Congress

Tales Of Our Times

By JOHN BARTLIT
New Mexico Citizens
for Clean Air & Water

Tales Of Our Times: Parties Reap Dark Money From Their Own Members In Congress

Big money is the currency of the constant tactical strikes practiced by the two giant political parties. Strikes launched against the enemy party fill the news. Yet big parties rarely mention how they strong-arm election winners on their side. This column updates the issue of big money in politics. The last half of the column describes the money source that both parties fully endorse on the quiet. That source is party dues in Congress.

During primary elections, party leaders add a lot of attacks against others in their own party. We saw this practice in the recent complex Democratic debates. Strikes were mild and few among the original twenty-some challengers. The attacks openly grew in number and strength among the final seven candidates, who included two billionaires and many multimillionaires. Allegations persist about fat cats “buying” elections, but this theory is repeatedly disproved by election outcomes.

Big parties engage in a sub-contest, a hide-and-seek game played with campaign funds. News reports scratch up discoverable sums donated to each candidate and their sources. These sums are treated now as sterling indicators of who is the stronger candidate. Think of it. Talk shifts with the wind. This contest is a murky one, since persons and parties want family and attached finances hidden, while political combat wants them exposed.

Meanwhile, parties keep finding reasons why the other party gets improper funds. In broad terms, business boosters join up in trade associations in order to gain clout for their business. Workers join up in trade unions to gain clout for their skills. One big party proclaims that unions pooling their money to gain clout is enterprising, while trade associations pooling money is shady. The rival party claims the reverse: trade associations are enterprising, but unions are shady.

Crossfire stirs questions, which make laws evolve. In a 2010 case known as “Citizens United,” the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on funds from associations like corporations and unions. Many people now talk about a constitutional amendment that would alter the U.S. Supreme Court’s thinking about rules for money from such groups.

By contrast, few words are heard from either party about their mutual custom for adding large sums of money to campaign coffers. Both parties do it the same way. How the system works can be found by searching “party dues in Congress.” The whole picture shows why neither party is about to attack the other for its big fat money deal.

People admire their own party. When required by leaders in one’s own party, party dues are properly needed to restock the war chest. Yet, when leaders in the other party demand dues, dues have the moldy smell of money owed to high-ups for indulgences and tribute. In reality, party dues work the same in both parties, as best as can be seen. I say “as best we know,” because the operations are hard to confirm exactly. The dues system amounts to very dusky money that gets scant attention in the media.

Chiefs in each big party enjoy more clout from having more party dues. Every newly elected member of Congress takes on a large new debt in party dues the day he or she arrives in Washington.

The outline of either party’s workbook reads as follows:

  • When new members come to Congress, their party’s leadership tells them how much they now owe in party dues. Typical dues per member run a quarter million dollars. Indeed, a quick quarter million.
  • Then the party leadership provides the call lists telling new members who they should call to seek the pots of money for party chiefs.
  • Party leadership provides the facilities for making these fundraising calls and for hosting fundraising events for the people or businesses they are assigned to call.
  • In return, party leadership promotes the member to higher committee assignments.
  • In return, party leadership agrees to help the member move or stall legislation.

Party dues are in addition to funds that members must constantly raise on their own behalf. Leaders in each party explain that the system is voluntary and is wise. Yet, clear answers to fair questions remain scarce.

Five fair questions to high-ups in each party:

  • What is the range of dues charged and what decides the dues charged?
  • How closely do higher dues correlate with better committee assignments?
  • Who is on the parties’ lists of prospective donors to call?
  • Dues are said to be “voluntary”. What is the fate of members who have not paid their dues?
  • A major dispute between the two parties is whose money sources are proper. Why do both parties do their level best to avoid talking about funds raised by party dues?

Suppose the parties chose to cut back money in politics. At their leaders’ orders, both parties could eliminate the large dues that each now charges its newcomers in Congress. No step is easier.

Note: Today is the start of the new Congress.

Search
LOS ALAMOS

ladailypost.com website support locally by OviNuppi Systems