And Congress makes fun of Iraq....

Experts: ‘Pay to play’ is the SOP on Capitol Hill By Mike Soraghan

The alleged “pay-to-play” scheme coarsely laid out by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) in FBI wiretaps sent the political world on the hunt for those who reportedly offered $1.5 million for a Senate seat.

But campaign finance experts and some lawmakers wonder why the person dubbed “Senate Candidate 5” is getting singled out. They do not see much difference between what the candidate’s “emissary” offered and standard operating procedure in Congress — where the promise to raise millions is part of advancing into leadership or a chairmanship.


Senate Candidate 5 is believed to be Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), who has denied any wrongdoing.

“In some ways, the only thing Blagojevich did wrong was he was stupid enough to say it out loud,” said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center. “For other people, it’s a wink and a nod. Verbalizing it crosses the line.”

For example, every few months the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee distributes a list to caucus members showing which members have paid their “dues” — the money they’re expected to give to the party — and met their fundraising goals.

The chairmen of “exclusive” committees, like Appropriations and Ways and Means, are expected to come up with $1.5 million — the same amount of money that “Senate Candidate 5’s” emissaries promised Blagojevich.

The chairmen are expected to pay $500,000 in dues, and raise at least $1 million. Top leaders are expected to pay at least $800,000 and raise $2.5 million. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hit her target of raising $25 million.

People with less power pay less, according to a chart provided to The Hill by a lawmaker outraged by the link between policy and fundraising.

There’s “exclusive subcommittee chairs,” then regular members of Ways and Means, Appropriations and the other exclusive committees, down to rank-and-file members, who are to pay dues of $125,000 and raise $75,000.

Money-in-politics experts say politicians usually call their emissaries “bundlers.”
“That’s just a bundler who’s actually asking for something,” said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics, which maintains the OpenSecrets.org database of contribution data.
Lawmakers and aides say there are important distinctions between everyday fundraising and “pay-to-play.”

But with the link between fundraising and advancement in the House, it might not be surprising that someone would see no problem with offering to raise money to move up to higher office, said Marian Currinder, a Georgetown University professor who authored Money in the House, a study of campaign funds and congressional party politics.

“That’s your understanding of how the game is played,” Currinder said. “It winds up looking sleazy, but it’s not that far out there.”

The key difference that Currinder sees between the “Senate Candidate 5” situation and everyday fundraising is that lawmakers must raise money for the party, rather than one person. But, she notes, leaders do sometimes dispatch members to raise money for a particular member whose reelection is in jeopardy.

Some donors are seeking the kind of favors a congressman can grant: an earmark, a regulatory change or a sharp letter to a recalcitrant bureaucrat. And such contributions aren’t viewed as illegal or unethical.

In fact, the Senate Ethics Manual lays out something of a roadmap for accepting a contribution after doing a donor a favor.

“This should never be presented as a payment for the services rendered,” the manual says, quoting an ethics report from the 1950s. “Furthermore, a decent interval of time should be allowed to lapse so that neither party will feel that there is a close connection between the two acts.”

The Democrats who run Congress now insist that Republicans under House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) forged an even stronger link between fundraising and committee assignments.

One of the more blatant examples was the fundraising one-upmanship between Republican Reps. Jerry Lewis of California and Hal Rogers of Kentucky as they vied for the Appropriations chairmanship in 2004.

Traditionally, Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), the most senior candidate, would have been next in line. But he lived up to his reputation as a lackluster fundraiser.

In one meeting before the vote, Rogers stepped up with a $300,000 check to the Battleground 2004 fundraising program. Then Lewis strode to the microphone with a check for $600,000. Regula fumed quietly. Lewis won the chairmanship and is now the ranking member. Regula is retiring next year.

Lewis spokeswoman Jennifer Hing rejected the comparison between the chairman race and the Blagojevich complaint.

“I don’t see any similarities between members of Congress raising money for their respective parties and a governor trying to sell a Senate seat,” Hing said. “Like all of his colleagues in leadership and senior committees, Lewis raises money every year for candidates and members.”

The difference, say staffers and members of the parties’ fundraising committees, is that members don’t pay a specific price to obtain a chairmanship or leadership post. They’re expected to raise more money for the party only after they get the jobs.

Northwestern University law Professor Albert Alschuler says the question in the case of Senate Candidate 5 and his emissary comes down to context.

“If he made a quid pro quo offer for campaign funds, then he’s guilty of breaking the law,” Alschuler said. “There’s a thin line. It’s different if he said, ‘If I was in the Senate, I’d be in a position to raise money for you.’ ”