warning Hi, we've moved to USCANNENBERGMEDIA.COM. Visit us there!

Neon Tommy - Annenberg digital news

Watergate Prosecutor Assesses Campaign Finance Controversy

Ryan Faughnder |
October 28, 2010 | 2:26 p.m. PDT

Staff Reporter

The Watergate hotel (Creative commons)
The Watergate hotel (Creative commons)
Following the money has become even harder this midterm election season. 

The Public Campaign Action Fund recently reported that total campaign fundraising and spending on the 2010 congressional elections will reach almost $2 billion dollars by the time the polls close on Nov. 2. Much of this funding has come from secret corporate donations given through non-profit political action committees.

According to Public Citizen, a non-profit watchdog group that supports campaign finance reform, independent organizations that contribute to political campaigns reported the identities of fewer than one third of their donors this year. In 2006, nearly all revealed their donors’ identities.

This is the first major election since the U.S. Supreme Court gave corporations the freedom to spend unlimited sums of money on political advertisements in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

This has raised concerns about potential corruption. A recent New York Times article suggested parallels between the current situation and the illegal corporate campaign donations uncovered during the Watergate investigation in the early 70s.

Neon Tommy reporter Ryan Faughnder spoke to Watergate lead prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste, who also served as a member of the 9/11 Commission.

Neon Tommy: What was your responsibility in the Watergate prosecution, and how big was the role of illegal campaign donations by corporations in the case?

Richard Ben-Veniste: My responsibility in Watergate was for the Watergate cover-up conspiracy, and we had a separate campaign violations task force. But I can tell you that there was a significant amount of money that was raised in secret by various contributions from individuals and corporations that revealed the system of corruption where contributions were made with the expectation of a quid pro quo, and sometimes such a quid pro quo was proved.

NT: Another former Watergate prosecutor, Roger Witten, was recently quoted in the New York Times comparing the current issue to Watergate. Is this a fair comparison?

RBV: I think so. I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant. And how can you tell if there is a quid pro quo for a contribution unless you can tell who it was who gave the money?

NT: What about Karl Rove’s statements about Democrats essentially having done the same thing for years through their own non-profits?

RBV: If there were violations of the law, then they would have been pursued. I’m not suggesting that this is a partisan issue. It isn’t. It’s a good-government issue. It doesn’t matter whether the funds are being contributed to Democrats or Republicans. Unless the public has the right to know who’s making these contributions, then the potential for corruption is there to flourish.

For example, ITT was a company that essentially financed the entire cost of the Republican convention in 1972. We also know that ITT had a serious anti-trust problem. We also know that as a result of these illegal funds being contributed under the table, as it were, the direction was given directly by President Nixon to shut down the continuation of the pursuit of ITT’s anti-trust violations.

Similarly, the milk producers organization gave a secret contribution of $2 million, in return for which milk prices were allowed to rise. There was a direct intercession, which cost the American consumer millions and millions of dollars as a result of secret contributions.

NT: This is important in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Are we seeing the effects of that here?

RBV: Yes, I think we are. We are seeing a tremendous amount of money that is essentially unaccounted for – in terms of attribution to the actual donors – flooding into this year’s campaign. There’s a double whammy between the Citizens United decision and Congress’s failure to require identification of campaign contributions by corporations.

In fact, during the Nixon era – contrary to statements by some who are supporting the current state of affairs, who claim that secrecy is necessary to prevent intimidation in making these campaign contributions – in fact, the secrecy during the Watergate era allowed extortion by members of the administration who brazenly demanded contributions by threatening reprisal unless those funds were delivered.

And Maurice Stans, who was the former Secretary of Commerce and headed up Nixon’s fundraising efforts, essentially gave people a tithing in the corporate world. You owe this much. Unless you pay your share, you’re not going to get access and bad things will happen to you as a result of government regulation.

So again, unless we learn from history, we are going to be the unfortunate recipients of another dose of corruption in government that potentially dwarfs anything we saw during Watergate.

NT: Even with the looser restrictions, is there anything illegal going on with these PACs that contribute so much to campaigns?

RBV: I can’t be specific and don’t wish to make any assertions for which I have seen no evidence.

But generally, the potential for foreign money coming in to influence American elections is certainly there as a result of anonymity. There are some very hazy lines between American companies and American companies that are subsidiaries of foreign companies. So without any ability to track and trace who these contributors are, we are at a complete disadvantage to require accountability and to be able to connect the dots should there be the appearance of favorable treatment. How can you show quid pro quo unless you know who’s contributing the money?

NT: What’s the difference between the donation through PACs and donations through unions?

RBV: So far as I know, the union contributions are made known. When you have a PAC, you don’t know who the contributors to the PAC are.

It’s all a function of transparency, which, in my view, having seen the evolution of various attempts to evade the campaign financing laws over the years since Watergate, has now seen this direct assault, which is probably the most insidious in its potential effect on good government in this country.

NT: With the Citizens United decision on the books, can this be changed?

RBV: The Supreme Court’s decision is based on what I view as an erroneous interpretation of freedom of speech, giving corporations the same freedoms as living and breathing human beings.

But putting that aside, I think it’s incumbent upon Congress to pass legislation that requires disclosure of the identities of individuals and entities that are making contributions.

 

Reach reporter Ryan Faughnder here.

Sign up for Neon Tommy's weekly e-mail newsletter.



 

Buzz

Craig Gillespie directed this true story about "the most daring rescue mission in the history of the U.S. Coast Guard.”

Watch USC Annenberg Media's live State of the Union recap and analysis here.

 
ntrandomness