| #10: Senators Reject Scott Lautenbaugh's Assault On State's Campaign Finance System
One of the foundations of Nebraska politics is our state's surprisingly progressive system of campaign finance regulations intended to limit the flow of money and influence while creating a fairer playing field.
The last real effort to repeal this system was seen in 2006, led by then-Speaker of the Legislature Kermit Brashear. Thankfully, in the wake of Regent Dave Hergert's impeachment based on his fraudulent reports and blatant misrepresentations on the 2004 campaign trail, Brashear found himself unable to beat back a series of long overdue reforms advocated by the then-State Senator and current Lincoln mayor Chris Beutler, who'd been the primary author and champion of the original legislation.
When I interviewed Beutler during his 2007 mayoral campaign, he even went so far as declaring Nebraska's "the best campaign finance law in the country." Even then, however, Beutler acknowleged that independent exenditures allowed some creative ways to get around the restrictions placed on candidates and their campaigns.
That leads us to this year's effort by State Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh taking up Brashear's cause and attempting to dismantle Nebraska's campaign finance laws. In his Amendment 1322 to Legislative Bill 626, Lautenbaugh proposed the outright repeal of the state's "Campaign Finance Limitation Act," striking the current system of voluntary campaign spending caps and public financing in favor of stricter reporting requirements.
Lautenbaugh complains that the current system has essentially left candidates with their hands tied behind their backs unable to defend themselves with the rise of independent expenditures. Of course, candidates choose to voluntarily abide by these limitations - approaching a staggering $90,000 in the Legislature - so his complaint doesn't hold a whole lot of water. But, considering that Lautenbaugh is probably the biggest stooge for big business in the entire legislative body, it's understandable that he'd want to open the floodgates as wide as possible for his 2010 reelection campaign.
It's one of the brightest spots of the legislature's 2009 session that State Senators roundly rejected Lautenbaugh's proposal with only 13 votes in support. Still, we can be certain that these sorts of challenges aren't going anywhere. To protect the long-term integrity of our campaign finance system, it's important that we hold those Senators accountable who are working to undermine it.
The 13 votes to repeal the Campaign Finance Limitation Act came from Colby Coash, Tony Fulton, Lautenbaugh, Rich Pahls, Ken Schilz, Mike Flood, Lavon Heidemann, Beau McCoy, Scott Price, Mike Friend, Charlie Janssen, John Nelson, and Kent Rogert.
It's very disappointing to see where Speaker of the Legislature Flood stands on this issue, especially because he has so much influence over the agenda should future repeal efforts arise. Otherwise, Kent Rogert's vote is the only other one to stand out as being cast by someone other than a right-wing Republican. But, Rogert's got a definite libertarian streak that makes him a bit of a wild card, so I can't say his vote is all that surprising.
As for those 25 votes against Lautenbaugh's amendment, I want to thank Senators Greg Adams, Tanya Cook, Bob Giese, Steve Lathrop, Dave Pankonin, Brad Ashford, Abbie Cornett, Ken Haar, Leroy Louden, Arnie Stuthman, Bill Avery, Brenda Council, Tom Hansen, Amanda McGill, Kate Sullivan, Kathy Campbell, Annette Dubas, John Harms, Heath Mello, Norm Wallman, Tom Carlson, Tim Gay, Gwen Howard, Jeremy Nordquist, and John Wightman.
That's a strong, diverse coalition and a majority of the body. But, it's a bare, one-vote majority that means we can't lose sight of those who were present but didn't vote on the matter: Mark Christensen, Deb Fischer, Galen Hadley, Chris Langemeier, Pete Pirsch, Cap Dierks, Mike Gloor, Russ Karpisek, Danielle Nantkes, and Dennis Utter. One could only hope that bolder voices would emerge from this group in defense of our state's campaign finance laws should the issue arise once again.
Finally, although I wouldn't rank it as one of the most important votes of the 2009 session, I need to call special attention to the final votes on LB 626, to which Lautenbaugh had attempted his barely-related amendment. It just so happens that this legislation was the sole bill vetoed by Gov. Dave Heineman this year. Thus, it was also the year's only override of a gubernatorial veto.
What demands attention is the change in vote counts between final reading and overriding the governor. LB626 passed with an overwhelming 44 votes when it was sent to Heineman's desk. But, nine of those votes disappeared in the successful override, in apparent deference to the governor that demands some explanation.
State Senators Friend, Gay, McCoy, Pirsch, Fulton, Hansen, Louden, and Nelson all voted against the override after originally supporting LB626. At the same time, Senators Ashford and Stuthman demonstrated a similar lack of spine by voting for the bill on final reading but declaring themselves present and withholding their votes when it came up for an override attempt.
It probably shouldn't surprise that each of those State Senators is a Republican, apparently not wanting to go against their party's head honcho. I wish there was more to these State Senaors' thinking. With Ashford, that might even be the case. But, I honestly can't say that any of them truly deserve the benefit of the doubt. Instead, it just seems like there's a whole lot of competition to become Heineman's newest henchmen. |
