Political High Rollers: Who Spent the Most Cash Last Year?
Monday, February 13, 2012
It may have been an off year for elections in Rhode Island, but that didn’t stop 20 current and former elected officials from spending over $1 million in campaign cash in 2011.
A GoLocalProv review of campaign finance reports shows the 20 biggest spenders last year spent $1,065,645.11 on everything from political contributions and consultants down to postage and trips to Gregg’s Restaurants.
Leading the way was Providence Mayor Angel Taveras, who spent $254,327.73 during the year, over $120,000 more than Governor Lincoln Chafee and six times more than the next Mayor on the list, Pawtucket’s Don Grebien.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTAside from Taveras, the top five spenders in 2011 included Governor Chafee ($136,218.17), House Speaker Gordon Fox ($103,679.55), Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed ($79,501.38) and Senate Majority Leader Dominick Ruggerio ($51,365.62).
Top Restaurants Cash in
The majority of Taveras’ expenses went toward repaying money he loaned himself during his 2010 campaign for Mayor and to Campaign Finance Officers, the well-known fundraising company run by Providence Water Supply Board chairman Brett Smiley. The Mayor also had tabs totaling nearly $8,000 eating at Venda Ravioli, Bravo Brasserie, Blaze East Side and D'Vine on the Hill.
But Taveras wasn’t the only who spent a significant portion of his campaign fund on food and beverages during the year. Records show that politicians spent thousands of dollars on meals at some of the most popular restaurants in the state, including:
$21,341.40 at Venda Ravioli
$18,974.21 at Camille's
$14,466.90 at Capriccio Restaurant
$7,612.00 at Capital Grille
$4,905.80 at Bravo Brasserie
Money Used to Hold onto Power
The large amount spent during the year has caught the eye of Common Cause executive director John Marion, who says too often those sitting on the largest war chests are not using their campaign accounts for their intended purpose.
“We shouldn't forget that the money used for these perks oftentimes comes from those seeking specific public policies from the legislature,” Marion said. “Decisions about those policies are largely concentrated in the hands of the political leadership which is why they are able to establish such large war chests. They should be using that money for campaigning, not maintaining their hold on power.”
Marion did note that elected officials aren’t doing anything illegal by spending their money on restaurants and entertainment. But he said the money should be used on their campaigns.
“The use of campaign funds for non-campaign activities is expressly allowed in Rhode Island law because our law expressly allows spending on activities for ‘officeholding,’” Marion said. “Our research indicates that is not so in other New England states. Common Cause believes that campaign funds should be used for . . . campaigns.”
State Lawmakers Raise Money During Session
Another area of concern for Marion and other good government groups is that in the Ocean State, there is no off-season when it comes to fundraising. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Rhode Island is one of 22 states that do not place any restrictions on giving and receiving campaign contributions during the legislative session.
While campaign fundraising is essential for elected officials, a ban on in-session fundraising at least curtails the length of the fundraising season, according to Rhode Island College Professor of Political Communication Valerie Endress.
“Over 50 percent of the states have passed a law prohibiting members of the GA from fundraising during the legislative session. Rhode Island does not,” Endress told GoLocalProv last year. “The logic behind the ban is that accepting campaign contributions at the same time assembly members are casting votes may lead to a conflict of interest. It’s all about the appearance of impropriety—and rightfully so. Individuals, lobbyists, or interest groups may have legislation pending, and campaign contributions may be seen as a way to gain additional leverage.”
Two-Year Cycles
While the general office holders and Mayor Taveras do not have to worry about re-election until 2014, the majority of elected officials on the list will likely face challenges this year. Because some Mayors and all General Assembly members face two-year cycles, the pressure to raise and spend campaign cash immediately can be immense.
“On the question of fundraising, the two-year term typically puts more immediate pressure on incumbents to start raising money the day after they get sworn in, but strategic incumbents in both two and four year positions (some states have two-year governships) use early fundraising to shore up their own base and scare away challengers,” Brown Political Science Professor Wendy Schiller told GoLocalProv.
Schiller said it would be interesting to see what would happen if elected officials weren’t allowed to fundraise in their first year in office.
“It would be very useful to be able to test the theory by barring incumbents from raising money in the first year of their tenure,” Schiller said. “At least then contributors would have a record to base their decision on and it would reduce the early fundraising advantage for incumbents versus challengers.”
Marion: A Culture Problem
But barring any changes to the state’s campaign finance laws, Marion said the elected officials with the largest campaign accounts will always be able to maintain a firm grasp on the power structure, particularly on Smith Hill.
“We have a problem with the political culture in the General Assembly,” he said “Minor perks such as stickers, dinners and legislative grants are used to extract political loyalty. Our campaign finance system shouldn't be used as a tool to further that culture.”
If you valued this article, please LIKE GoLocalProv.com on Facebook by clicking HERE.
