Former Senator William Proxmire has bequeathed his legendary Golden Fleece Award to Public Campaign to use in highlighting the ongoing and escalating abuses of the current campaign finance system. In its new incarnation, our "Golden Leash Award" will move beyond wasted taxpayer dollars to a new focus on the outrageous favors, access or trade-offs purchased with special interest campaign contributions.
In his long and distinguished career, Senator William Proxmire awarded hundreds of the dreaded citations and helped highlight, curtail and cancel many wasteful programs. He limited his targets to those that would be universally regarded as an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars, avoiding any that could be tainted by partisan considerations. Public Campaign intends to follow in his footsteps, targeting blatant examples of special interest favoritism tied to campaign contributions made. Indeed, it is Senator Proxmire who coined the term "golden leash" by remarking on the strong hold that special interests have on Congress through their campaign contributions.
Through the Golden Leash Awards, we will focus public attention on politicians who do particularly egregious favors for their cash constituents, highlighting their captivity to special interests at the likely expense of average voters, taxpayers and the public at large.
While recipients of the award are likely to be members of Congress themselves, particularly deserving state legislators may be highlighted, as well. We will expose the daily abuses of the campaign finance system and the corrupting influence special interest money has on our democracy.
U.S. Representative Bill McCollum -- This award serves as a reminder of Representative McCollum's acceptance of $373,857 in campaign cash during the last six years from the Banking and Financial Services industries, and in turn, using his position on the Banking and Financial Services Committee and the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives to promote special favors for his "cash constituents" at the expense of his real constituents back home, and the American people. More...
U.S. Senator Christopher J. Dodd -- This award serves as a reminder of Senator Dodd’s acceptance of $910,304 in campaign cash from January 1993 to December 1997 from the Securities, Investment, Accounting and High-Tech Computer industries, and in turn, using his position as ranking Democrat on the Securities Subcommittee of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee to promote special favors for his "cash constituents" at the expense of his real constituents back home, and the American people.
More...
U.S. Representative Bill Thomas -- Between 1991 and 1998, Thomas collected more than half a million dollars -- $535,648 -- from hospitals, HMOs, physicians, health insurance companies and other health care interests. In the 1996 elections, Thomas ranked third in the House for contributions from the health care industry, excluding contributions from the insurance industry. More....
U.S. Senator John Breaux -- This award serves as a reminder of Senator Breaux's acceptance of $276,000 from energy industries since 1993, and in turn, using his position in the Senate to promote special favors for his "cash constituents" at the expense of his real constituents back home, and the American people. More...
U.S. Representative Charles Stenholm -- This award serves as a reminder of Representative Stenholm's acceptance of $226,876 from the pesticide industry and related concerns since 1991 and in turn, using his position in the House of Representatives to promote special favors for his "cash constituents" at the expense of his real constituents back home, and the American people. More...
U.S. Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions and U.S. Representative Bob Aderholt -- This award serves as a reminder of Senator Shelby's acceptance of $46,373 from 1993 to 1998, Senator Sessions' acceptance of $44,950 from 1993 to 1998, and Representative Aderholt's acceptance of $39,463 in 1998 from the mobile home industry and related concerns and in turn, using their positions in the U.S. Congress to promote special favors for their "cash constituents" at the expense of their real constituents back home, and the American people. More...
U.S. Senator Ernest Hollings -- This past May, Senator Hollings cast a most unusual vote, as the only Democrat to support the Financial Modernization Act (FMA) of 1999, S. 900. Hollings' vote regarding this bill is difficult to explain, given his pro-consumer voting record. But when considered in the context of the over $250,000 the Senator received from industries that would most benefit from the legislation, additional light is shed on his decision. More...
U.S. Representative Tom Davis -- This award serves as a reminder of Representative Davis' acceptance of $109,286 from 1993 to 1998 the computer industry and in turn, using his position in the U.S. House of Representatives to promote special favors for his "cash constituents" at the expense of his real constituents back home, and the American people.
More...
U.S. Senator Kent Conrad -- Why would Conrad rise to the insurance industry's defense? A look at the senator's campaign contribution profile may provide an answer. Since 1995, Conrad, who is up for reelection in 2000, has received nearly $115,000 in individual ($200+) and PAC contributions from the insurance industry -- more than any other industry. Many of Conrad's top insurance donors, such as New York Life Insurance, Metropolitan Life Insurance, and Clark/Bardes, Inc., have a stake in COLI business. More...
The Year 2000 Presidential Candidates -- We are still eleven months away from knowing who will be the next president. But we already know what his most prominent fashion accessory will be: a golden leash. From the high rises of New York’s Upper East Side, to the mansions of Beverly Hills, to the cherry-tree-studded lawns of Washington lobbyists - the wealthiest Americans have opened their wallets to finance the 2000 presidential campaign. Assuming that one of the top candidates in the Republican and Democratic primaries is elected, these elites will be holding the next president on a golden leash. An analysis of large individual ($200+) contributions to presidential campaigns compared with 1990 U.S. Census data (the most recent available) on zip code, income, and race reveals that wealthy and white donors are overwhelmingly over-represented compared to their proportion in the general population. Contributions of $200 or more account for 84 percent of the total contributions made by individuals to presidential campaigns. Though the disparities described below are stark, they are vastly understated, as the income data available from the Census is now nearly a decade old. More...
