See Dick fundraise

The Democratic leader plays the game well — so why would he want to change the rules?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


It’s always been hard to figure out what Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Missouri) really believes in. When first elected to Congress in 1976, he was a conservative Democrat — and particularly outspoken in his opposition to abortion. Once he realized his anti-abortion stance would keep him from moving up the Democratic ladder, he became pro-choice. A moderate Democrat in 1985, he moved left for his presidential campaign in 1988. Now, as he unveils his “Families First” legislative plan (a vague, moderate blueprint for a Democratic congressional agenda), Gephardt has assumed another guise — the Comeback Centrist.

In the past few years Gephardt has flipped his positions on Social Security, medical savings accounts, the minimum wage, and a balanced budget. But Gephardt has remained steadfast on one issue: his behind-the-scenes resistance to campaign finance reform.

As the ranking Democrat in the House, Gephardt (like former Speaker Tom Foley before him) has made a career out of looking out for the interests of House Democrats — even when those interests conflict with the public interest. Because Gephardt depends on the House Democratic caucus to advance his ambitions, he almost inevitably panders to the caucus, rather than trying to lead or reform it.

Take campaign finance. Since the current system favors incumbents, few of the House Democrats who have supported Gephardt’s rise to the party leadership have been eager to change it. And what’s bad for the Democratic caucus, notes a White House aide, is “by extension, not good for Gephardt.”

But the main reason Gephardt drags his feet on campaign finance reform is that, even as a member of the minority, he makes out like a bandit under the current system. His campaign has so far sucked in nearly $2 million this election cycle (compared to the paltry $13,085 garnered by his challenger, Deborah Lynn Wheelehan).

Nor has all Gephardt’s money come from traditional Democratic constituencies such as organized labor. In 1995 alone, Gephardt received $82,468 from PACs associated with finance, insurance, and real estate, and $42,808 from PACs associated with lawyers and lobbyists, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Gephardt is also among the top Democratic recipients of tobacco PAC money, with $13,000 since 1995.

Gephardt uses his leadership PAC, the Effective Government Committee, to share the wealth; for the 1994 election campaign, he handed out $703,596 to other Democrats who had supported his climb up the party ladder.

Gephardt’s voracious fundraising robs him of moral authority on reform issues. Last year, he criticized Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) for passing out PAC checks to lawmakers on the floor of the House. But when a reporter asked if the Democrats had ever done the same when they controlled Congress, a flustered Gephardt hemmed and hawed and refused to answer the question, finally turning the mike over to Rep. Lynn Rivers, a freshman from Michigan, who answered that she had never distributed or taken money on the House floor.

With the Democrats in the minority, this would seem an opportune moment to push for campaign finance reform. “It would be an effective hammer now,” says one Democratic reformer.

But Gephardt’s public assaults on the GOP’s stewardship of the Congress pay only lip service to the idea that the House would be improved by cleaning up campaign financing. Even as he lambastes the Republicans on other issues, Gephardt is relatively quiet on this point; he once ventured that he would support a “commission” to study it.

This reluctance to pursue reform is longstanding. In the spring of 1993, for example, Gephardt helped convene a meeting of fellow Democrats (including Georgia Rep. John Lewis, Michigan Rep. John Dingell, and Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro) in order to warn administration officials — notably then-Chief of Staff Mack McLarty — that Clinton’s push for campaign finance reform would hurt Democrats in Congress. As it turned out, the November 1994 elections suggested just the opposite: that the Democrats’ failure to pass campaign reform helped the GOP win Congress.

Campaign finance is not the only issue where Gephardt is torn between what’s good for the Democrats in Congress and what’s good for the country. In early 1994, when President Clinton was pushing for his crime bill — which included the assault weapons ban that the National Rifle Association was desperately fighting — Gephardt went to the White House to urge the president to drop the ban. Why? Because congressional Democrats from conservative districts feared it might hurt their re-election chances. More recently, Gephardt made a similar plea to Clinton not to take on the tobacco industry for the same reason. In both cases, Clinton ignored Gephardt’s advice, leading to two of his most politically popular — and meaningful –efforts.

The Republicans’ current lack of popularity is largely a result of their failure to follow through on their promise to reform the way Congress does business. But Gephardt doesn’t seem to have learned from the GOP’s mistake: In his much-touted “Families First” agenda, there’s not a single mention of campaign finance.

Gephardt and the Democrats may retake the House in November’s elections. But a Gephardt-led House that shuns campaign reform will not be led by Gephardt — or the Democrats — for long.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate