The National Institute on Money in State Politics’s Follow The Money site reports on how campaign donations from the financial sector to Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller have skyrocketed since he took the lead role in the AGs’ foreclosure fraud settlement.
And “skyrocketed” is no hyperbole:
Nearly half of the money Miller raised in 2010—$338,223 of $785,103—was donated after the October 13 announcement that he would be coordinating the 50-state attorneys general investigation…
Out-of-state lawyers and lobbyists gave Miller $261,445 in 2010, which is 88 times more than they gave over the previous decade. Out-of-state donors from the FIRE sector gave Miller $56,150 in 2010, compared to $3,500 in 2006 and $1,000 in 2002…
The Des Moines Register follows the report and quotes Miller saying that the Follow The Money report “is false or misleading from the start to the finish.” But other than noting that he ran unopposed in 2006, he doesn’t have much to back him up. The numbers are what they are, even if he were to face a well bankrolled opponent this time.
It’s worth emphasizing that Miller has been one of the more pro-consumer attorneys general over the last decade, warning about predatory lending and fighting the comptroller of the currency over preempting state regulators from taking action against out-of-control national banks the OCC wouldn’t rein in.
That makes it all the more important to watch whether all this new money has any effect. Miller’s donations from out-of-state lobbyists, lawyers, and financial and real estate interests rose exponentially last year, Follow The Money reports.
In 2010, 63 percent of Miller’s cash came from outside Iowa. That was up from less than 10 percent in his previous runs. Miller says only a couple of donors had a “vested interest” in the foreclosure fraud investigation, but the timing and nature of the donors means it’s worth a closer look, particularly given how different the patterns are from previous cycles.
But there’s another problem here. Beyond the soft corruption of the campaign-finance system that this story emblemizes, it shows how dependent politicians can become on people they’re not supposed to represent.
Democracy and republicanism only works if the represented know that their representatives are, you know, representing them, rather than looking after the interests of rich donors in Manhattan, L.A., or Houston. But we don’t hear much about banning—or at least pressuring politicians to decline—out of state or even out-of-district campaign donations.
Why isn’t it a major problem that a guy elected to represent Iowans got most of his campaign cash from non-Iowans?
And this is something that’s hardly limited to Miller. Rahm Emmanuel, for instance got more than half of his campaign cash from outside Chicago.
Even that’s a pittance to what lots of other politicians get. Open Secrets took a snapshot of out-of-state donations in September during the campaign last year. It found that Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy had gotten 87 percent of his money from outside Vermont. Dennis Kucinich had gotten 98 percent of his money from outside Ohio.
This, along with things like gerrymandering, surely goes a long way toward understanding why politicians are detached from the people they represent.
Applaud Follow The Money for putting together this story, which deserves good play in the press. It’s a story a stronger mainstream press would have gotten itself.
I suggest readers follow the Register coverage, as oppose to taking this analysis at face value. Unlike Ryan, the Register actually presents Miller's response, as opposed to simply dismissing it, and his response is quite reasonable. For example:
1) The fact that he was unopposed in the years to which 2010 is being compared is a _little_ bit relevant. There is nothing strange about raising radically different amounts of cash between an election when you are facing no (2006) or weak (2002) opposition, vs. 2010, where Miller's opponent and her allies spent well over $2.2 million and the race was far closer than any in recent history. To Ryan this is apparently merely an inconvenient fact that strays from his narrative of choice.
2) The Register article, unlike Ryan, notes that contributions generally spike near the end of a campaign, which just as easily explains their timing. If you use the tool at Follow the Money that charts each candidates' contribution timeline, you see that inflows to Miller's opponent (Brenna Findley) follow the same pattern.
3) The connections drawn in the report are a bit tenuous. A giant law firm (Boies, et. al.) is representing a giant investment bank (Goldman Sachs) and that giant law firm contributed money in a state AG's race? What are the odds? It must be linked to the mortgage mess! Joe Nocera notes in his NYT column today that the same firm is representing an Alabama county that is being sued by a bond insurer. Maybe what Boies really wants is for Miller to crack down on the financial industry? The link is so clear! At least if we cherry pick the case that fits our narrative. The donation couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the fact that one of the named partners is a Democratic activist and Miller is well-known and respected Democratic AG in a tight race against a well-financed "Mama Grizzly."
4) I can't even figure out what this money would buy, if that really was what was going on - some of the contributions in question are from law firms with tenuous links to banks, others are from firms with tenuous links to entities suing the banks. For which side is he a hopeless sell-out?
Follow The Money lobbed out a weak story cobbled together from half the facts, perhaps knowing that there is a segment of the press that is always game for a politicians-and-banks-sell-us-out story. The Register did a good job of reading the report and adding context. Ryan swallowed the whole thing without a second thought - kudos to the Register for showing us how it's done.
As an aside, I agree that the inflow of out-of-state money is a problem. That would have been a better subject for this entire post, and for the original report - it's the real story behind what happened in the race. But I suspect it wouldn't have caught Ryan's eye if it wasn't somehow related to big banks and fraud...
#1 Posted by steve, CJR on Sat 23 Apr 2011 at 06:03 AM
Big banks and fraud should catch everyone's eyes, if they stop for a second to take a break between reality TV and royal wedding! The Banks and Wall Street committeed the biggest financial fraud in the history of the world and if it was not for people like Ryan, general public would still have extremely limited knowledge.
AG Miller should immediately stepp down as a LEAD negotiator! There is no way that people could trust someone who is getting money from the opposite side. There are still government officials whose silence and cooperation can't be bought. Please join people like MA Register of Deeds O'Brien and ask for all responsible to be criminally prosecuted. If we don't do this, we will remain slaves, homeless slaves forever!
http://boston67.blog.com/mers-mortgage-securitization-county-recorders/peoples-hero/
#2 Posted by Senka, CJR on Wed 11 May 2011 at 12:36 PM