Campaigns differ on financing

The leading Democratic candidates for governor of Rhode Island agree on many key policy points, but not on how a political campaign should be financed.
To compete in what is expected to be the most expensive primary in state history, Clay Pell, Gina Raimondo and Angel Taveras have tapped different sources to pay for television advertisements and get-out-the-vote operations.
Raimondo, the top fundraiser in this cycle, has built a record-breaking money-raising machine well-equipped to take advantage of her national business connections.
Pell, the political neophyte, has tapped his own personal fortune for more than $3 million in loans to date, more than making up for his relatively modest donations.
And lacking both the personal wealth and corporate support of his opponents, Taveras has focused on local individuals and groups to try to keep up.
With all three piling up solid account balances this year, the different ways they’ve raised money has itself become a campaign issue.
On the short end of the money race so far, Taveras has pointed to Raimondo’s outside support as more proof of a Wall Street agenda, while Pell has had to answer questions about the influence of personal wealth on government.
On a smaller scale, the same dynamic exists in the Republican primary, where Allan Fung has attacked Ken Block’s decision to bankroll much of his campaign spending.
What this year’s big-money campaigns have helped obscure, however, is that outside, independent-expenditure groups known as super political-action committees, which had been expected to play a big part in the race, have not done so.
A year ago, political pundits predicted that the super-PAC era had arrived in Rhode Island with the formation of the Raimondo-aligned American LeadHERship PAC.
But PACs so far have been largely missing from a governor’s race in which candidates have raised and spent money directly and not relied on outside groups to launch attacks for them.
“We haven’t seen any outside groups do any broadcast media in this race, and I think that is unexpected,” said John Marion, executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island. Marion attributed a big part of super PACs staying out of the Rhode Island race to the “People’s Pledge” Common Cause advocated for and the three Democrats signed to keep outside money out of the race. Modeled on a pledge created for the 2012 Massachusetts U.S. Senate race, the Rhode Island pledge had candidates agree to pay fines equal to the value of any outside television advertising made on their behalf.
“What a People’s Pledge does is change the hydraulics of campaign finance,” Marion said. “It doesn’t suppress all money, but channels more money directly to the candidates themselves. When money goes directly to candidates, each donation limited to $1,000, they are fully disclosed and the candidate has to stand by the ad, so it is less likely to be negative.”
While the Rhode Island People’s Pledge has effectively kept outside television advertising from playing a large role in the governor’s race, it has left room for PACs to get involved in other ways, such as mailings and phone banks.
Kate Coyne-McCoy, founder of the American LeadHERship PAC, said last week that the group is honoring the People’s Pledge and has not been involved in the governor’s race so far, but would not rule out spending on mail or phone calls in the near future.
As of June 30, American LeadHERship had raised just under $118,000 and spent $75,000 of that, mostly on consulting, according to filings with the Federal Elections Commission.
With PACs not a large factor in the race so far, the biggest surprise financial impact has been Pell’s willingness to loan his campaign $3.1 million since entering the race. That’s nearly eight times the $402,000 he has raised over the same period.
“No one was expecting Pell to lend $3 million to his campaign,” said Brown University political science professor Wendy Schiller. “That was a sea change, because it forced Gina and Taveras to spend more on campaign ads. Gina was going to spend money anyway, but it has forced Taveras to spend.” Between April 1 and Aug. 11, Raimondo raised $929,000, spent $2.6 million and had $1.7 million left on hand.
Taveras raised $408,574, spent $1 million and had $1.3 million left on hand.
Pell had raised $123,000, spent $2.3 million and had $802,000 left on hand.
In a small state like Rhode Island, where television advertising is not astronomically expensive, the incremental advantage from additional campaign spending diminishes, especially for a well-known incumbent.
But for unknown candidates like Pell without the public platform of a current office, money is more important, Schiller said.
“I do think when you are the least well-known, money matters the most,” Schiller said. “The money Pell has put in has made him a viable candidate.”
Whether wealthy candidates self-financing campaigns is good for democracy, giving them independence from the corrupting influence of fundraising, or bad, limiting government access only to the rich, is a subject of long debate.
“I’ve pledged not to accept contributions from PACs and state lobbyists because I believe it’s inappropriate for my campaign to be funded, even in part, by those paid to attempt to influence my decisions as governor,” Pell said through email from spokesman Devin Driscoll.
Asked for Raimondo’s thoughts on campaign self-financing, Raimondo spokeswoman Nicole Kayner said that “Gina has not made a loan to her governor’s campaign and she is proud to have contributions from people in every city and town in Rhode Island.”
(Raimondo loaned her treasury campaign $100,000 in 2009, according to campaign finance reports.)
The Taveras campaign also declined to comment directly on Pell’s personal campaign loans, but took a swipe at Raimondo’s financial-industry ties.
“Donors give mostly based on shared values,” spokeswoman Dawn Bergantino said. “The mayor is proud that the overwhelming majority of his contributions come from Rhode Islanders rather than his own bank account or from Wall Street.” (Taveras loaned his mayoral campaign $70,000 in 2010.)
Although the dollar figures involved in the Republican primary are much smaller than what’s being raised and spent on the Democratic side, some of the same issues of self-financing versus corporate financing are at work.
Block, president of Sympatico Software Systems, has loaned himself $1.2 million since his last gubernatorial bid in 2010, including $700,000 since last September. Over that same period, Block has raised roughly $220,000 in donations.
“Voters should be skeptical of candidates such as Clay Pell and Ken Block who are forced to spend millions of dollars of their personal fortunes to bankroll their political ambitions,” wrote Fung spokesman Robert Coupe in an email.
Block spokesman Jeff Britt countered that traditionally, Republican governors have self-financed their campaigns and a mix of funding sources is healthier than relying on donations from special interests.
“We are not relying on any one thing,” Britt said about the Block campaign.
From 2002 to 2006 in campaigns in Cranston, Fung loaned his campaigns more than $90,000. He has repaid all but $40,250 of that, according to state filings.
Although personal spending rather than outside groups has been the bigger player in the primary, Marion pointed out that the general election could be different if either the national political party becomes involved in the race.
It could be particularly important on the GOP side, where the Republican Governor’s Association has participated in previous campaigns.
“We have seen the national Republican party be willing to invest in Rhode Island – eight years ago they put several hundred thousand dollars behind [former R.I. Gov. Donald L. Carcieri] to push him over the top,” Marion said. “It was big money here but insignificant to what they raise nationally. That seems likely given the way things have played out in the past.” •

No posts to display