Say Anything Blog

Here’s a little treat for the North Dakota Democrat State Convention this weekend: I thought I’d re-publish my run-down of how the state Democrats are really just an out-of-state special interest group.  You won’t hear much about this in the state media, which will be much too busy swooning about the presence of Obama, but the fact that the state Democrats would hardly exist were it not for money sent by big-money liberal interests from outside North Dakota is true none-the-less.

This was originally published in The Dakota Beacon

Let me make one thing clear: North Dakota is being bought by big-money liberal interests from outside of the state.  Though this will be denied vehemently by the beneficiaries of this out-of-state largess, it is a statement of fact.

Through financial conduits maintained by North Dakota’s politically connected insiders like Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan - as well as Representative Earl Pomeroy - wealthy liberal interests from all over the country are pouring buckets of money into North Dakota with the singular goal of turning this red state blue.  Every election cycle millions of liberal dollars flow into the state, get laundered through a myriad of transfers between PAC’s, the state Democrat party and campaign accounts set up by Conrad, Dorgan and Pomeroy as well as the various state Democrat candidates, and ultimately get used to combat Republicans who, for the most part, rely on contributions from actual North Dakotans.

In this fashion people who are not North Dakotans, who have no real interest in this state or who may not ever even step foot on North Dakota soil, are influencing the outcome of our elections.  And while this is a state of affairs that currently works to the benefit of North Dakotans of a liberal bent, it’s a problem that transcends ideology.  We should all be worried.

Political influence in North Dakota should be wielded by North Dakotans, not rich political activists from out of state.

How Bad Is The Problem?

According to data from the North Dakota Secretary of State’s office both political parties in North Dakota - the Democrats and the Republicans - take significant amounts of money from out of state sources, including the respective national parties.  In 2006, for instance, the NDGOP got 32.34% of its political contributions from out of state sources.  In that same year, the state Democrat party got 48.38% of its money from out of state sources.

A significant chunk of the Democrats’ “in state” contributions came from transfers of political money that was originally raised by Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan as well as Representative Earl Pomeroy for their campaign accounts or their political action committees.  These men made contributions worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from their various political accounts to the North Dakota Democrat Party which then dispersed those funds to other campaigns in the state.

But here’s the interesting part: If we consider that these three North Dakota politicians get the vast majority of their money from out of state we’re presented with a much different situation.  According to the non-partisan campaign disclosure database OpenSecrets.org, Kent Conrad got 93% of his money from outside of North Dakota during the 2006 election cycle.  Byron Dorgan was at 92% and Earl Pomeroy was at 68%.  If we adjust their political contributions to the state Democrat party to reflect those percentages, the amount of in-state contributions to the North Dakota Democrats drops dramatically.

After adjustments, North Dakota Democrats got just a little under 20% of their political money from actual North Dakota contributors.  That works out, again according to data retrieved from the North Dakota Secretary of State’s website, to a whopping $875,877.48 coming from out of state sources and just $217,602.52 coming from supporters who actually live in North Dakota.  This is an approximate 80/20 split for out-of-state vs. in-state money.

Which makes this observer wonder how many campaigns the Democrats could run in North Dakota if they had to rely on financial support from actual North Dakotans.  $217,602.52 is not a lot of money.  That amount would be just barely enough cover the cost of the state party’s full-time staff and state headquarters expenses.

Put simply, the financial viability of one of this state’s two political parties would be questionable were it nor for big-money out of state interests fueling them with cash.

Who Are These Masked Men (And Women)?

That North Dakota Democrats get the vast majority of their political money from out-of-state interests raises a number of questions about ethics and the proper role of money in elections.  But one of the most interesting questions which needs to be asked is: Who are these people who are trying to buy our state, and why are they trying to buy our state?

Here’s a quick list of some of the biggest contributors to Democrats in 2006:

The Angelos Family: In 2006 John, Louis, Georgia and Peter Angelos gave a grand total of $60,000 to the North Dakota Democrat party.  Peter Angelos is a Maryland trial lawyer who owns the Baltimore Orioles and has been active in the Democrat party for decades.  Georgia Angelos is Peter’s wife.  John Angelos and Louis Angelos are Peter’s son and brother, respectively, and are both themselves Maryland trial lawyers.  But the Angelos family’s influence on North Dakota politics doesn’t end with these contributions.  In 2006 a Samuel Bates, employed (per federal campaign disclosure records) by the Law Offices of Peter Angelos, donated $10,000 to the state Democrat party as well bringing the total “Angelos group” contribution to $70,000.

Cooney & Conway Law Firm: This Chicago-based law firm contributed $25,000 to the North Dakota Democrats in 2006.  The firm is managed by John D. Cooney and Kevin J. Conway and specializes in asbestos and mesothelioma lawsuits.

Monte Friedkin: Friedkin is the former head of the Palm Beach County Florida Democrat Party and a major fundraiser for the national Democrat party.  He is also the owner of Benada Aluminum Of Florida, Inc. and donated $5,000 to the North Dakota Democrat party.

Leo Hindery: Hindery is the former President of the Yes! Television network, as well as the former CEO of Global Center, AT&T Broadband and the former chair of the National Cable Television Association.  He contributed $10,000 to the North Dakota Democrat party in 2006.

Russell Budd, Le Blanc & Waddell and Silberman Pearl: Russell Budd is a partner in the Baron & Budd law firm out of Texas which specializes in asbestos lawsuits.  Baron & Budd is the 98% owner of the Le Blanc & Waddell law firm of Baton Rouge, LA which also specializes in asbestos lawsuits.  Steve Baron of the Baron & Budd law firm is also the managing partner of the Texas-based Silberman & Pearl law firm.  In 2006 Russell Budd contributed $10,000 to the North Dakota Democrats.  Le Blanc & Waddell also contributed $10,000 as did Silberman Pearl bringing the entire contribution for this conglomerate of legal interests to $30,000.

Bennet LeBow: LeBow has been the Chairman and CEO of Vector Group since 1986, which is a holding company for (among other businesses) Liggett Tobacco.  Liggett Tobacco is the 6th largest cigarette maker in the United States and was the company which sided with the trial lawyers against the other tobacco companies in the tobacco lawsuits of the 1990’s.  He contributed $10,000 to North Dakota Democrats in 2006.

Malachi Mixon III: Malachi Mixon III has been a director of Invacare Corporation (manufacturer of medical equipment) since 1979. Mr. Mixon has been Chief Executive Officer since 1979 and Chairman of the Board since 1983 and also served as President until 1996. Mr. Mixon also serves as a director of The Sherwin-Williams Company (NYSE), Cleveland, Ohio, a manufacturer and distributor of coatings and related products. Mr. Mixon also serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.  Mixon donated $10,000 to the North Dakota Democrats in 2006.

Vance And Darin Opperman: Vance Opperman is, along with his wife Darin, a Minnesota billionaire trial lawyer with close ties to the Clinton administration (he served on a Presidential Advisory Committee on copyright law for Bill Clinton) and in 1995 and 1996 contributed at least $353,000 to re-electing Bill Clinton.  In 2006 Vance Opperman contributed $10,000 to the North Dakota Democrat party while his wife Darin contributed $2,500.

Paul & Hanley, LLP: Paul and Hanley is a Berkeley, CA law firm specializing in mesothelioma and asbestos lawsuits.  In 2006 the firm contributed $10,000 to the North Dakota Democrats.

Bernard Rapoport: Rapoport, from Waco, TX is the former chairman of Altig, an insurance company specializing in work with unionized labor forces.  He donated $10,000 to the North Dakota Democrats in 2006.

Bernard L. Schwartz: Schwartz of New York City is the former Chairman and CEO of Loral Space & Communications Inc.  He is currently the CEO of BLS Investments, LLC.  In 2006 he contributed $10,000 to the North Dakota Democrats.

Richard “Dickie” Scruggs: A Mississippi-based trial lawyer who made his fortune (he’s one of the richest men in Mississippi) in asbestos and tobacco lawsuits.  He is currently under indictment for allegedly bribing a federal judge involved in class action insurance lawsuits related to hurricane Katrina.  In 2006 he contributed $10,000 to the North Dakota Democrats.  When asked about this contribution from an under-indictment trial lawyer by myself, North Dakota Democrat Executive Director Jamie Selzler refused to answer any questions.

Dinakar Singh: Singh, based out of New York, is the founding partner of TPG- Axon Capital, a leading global investment firm.  He contributed $10,000 to the North Dakota Democrats in 2006.

Stanley, Mandel & Iola: A Texas-based law firm specializing in asbestos and “toxic tort” cases.  It contributed $10,000 to the North Dakota Democrats in 2006.

Michael Thornton, Edwin Wallace & Stacy Naumes: Michael Thornton is the co-founder of the Thornton & Naumes law firm in Boston, MA.  The firm specializes in asbestos and other “toxic tort” lawsuits.  Edwin Wallace is a partner in the Thornton & Naumes law firm.  Stacy Naumes is the wife of Robert Naumes, the other co-founder of Thornton & Naumes.  In 2006 Thornton contributed $10,000 to the North Dakota Democrats while Naumes and Wallace contributed $5,000 each bringing the total for the Thornton & Naumes interests to $20,000.

Edith Wasserman: Wife of former MCA/Universal Studios head Lewis Wasserman and Vice President/Secretary of the Wasserman Foundation.  She contributed $10,000 to the North Dakota Democrats in 2006.

Waters & Kraus Law Firm: This Texas-based law firm specializes in asbestos, mesothelioma and other “toxic tort” lawsuits.  It contributed $15,000 to the North Dakota Democrats in 2006.

Taken as a whole, this list of big-money contributors to the North Dakota Democrat party seems like an odd mixture.  Why do California movie executives, New York investment executives, Ohio medical equipment executives and “toxic tort” trial lawyers from all over the nation want to involve themselves in North Dakota politics?  None of them will ever be represented by a North Dakota politician.  So why, then, did they collectively contribute $267,500 to a political party in North Dakota in 2006, an amount that adds up to nearly 1/4 (24.5 percent) of that party’s total political contributions?

Given that most of the money from the State Democrat Party gets funneled down into statewide and local races, the only logical conclusion we can reach is that this conglomeration of liberal interests from all over the country are trying to use the weight of their piles of cash to push North Dakota to the left.

What Is All Of This Money Doing In Our State?

It is hard to calculate how money influences an election.  There are undoubtedly as many different ways for determining which candidate to vote for as there are voters, so whether or not more commercials or slicker campaigns makes a big difference is questionable.  But if money didn’t matter politicians wouldn’t beg for it, so it’s important when the Democrats start spending money on influencing elections that it’s clear most of the money they’re spending came from people who aren’t ever going to be represented by North Dakota politicians.

For instance, one of the most hotly-contested statewide elections in 2006 was the Public Service Commission race between Democrat Cheryl Bergian and Republican Tony Clark.  The race was a tight one to the end, so the ND Dems decided to pour money on it to try and put Bergian over the top.  During the last three weeks of the campaign, from October 15th through November 4th, the North Dakota Democrat party dumped $82,231 into Bergian’s campaign.  Remembering that the North Dakota Democrat party would only have had just over $217,000 total for the 2006 election cycle were it not for out-of-state contributors, that $82,231 is not an insignificant amount to put into one race.  If that money had turned the election for Bergian, it would have been a victory not for North Dakotans but rather for the list of trial lawyers and other wealthy liberal out-of-state personages I just wrote about.  A fact driven home by the fact that Bergian’s campaign, overall, got just over 94% of its money from out-of-state.

And Bergian’s campaign wasn’t the only one to benefit from big money sent in from the state Democrat party.

Ag Commissioner Roger Johnson’s re-election campaign benefited from $22,500 from the state party, and overall his campaign got about 60% of its money from out of state.

Democrat Insurance Commissioner candidate Brent Edison enjoyed an $85,794 cash infusion from his state party in the last three weeks of his campaign, which saw 86% of its money overall coming from out of state.

Democrat Attorney General candidate Bill Brudvik got $22,500 from his state party for his campaign against incumbent Republican Wayne Stenehjem.  Overall his campaign saw 80% of its funds come from out of state.

Does All This Out Of State Money Really Help?

What is interesting is that there does seem to be a correlation between out-of-state money and campaign success in the state.  Of the statewide Democrat candidates only Ag Commissioner Roger Johnson won his campaign (he was an incumbent), and he’s also the candidate who took the least amount of campaign money from out-of-state.  In general the Republican party takes in far less money from out of state than the Democrats do and also holds every single statewide office but one (Ag Commissioner) as well as majorities in both houses of the legislature.

Democrats may have the support of out-of-state interests, but Republicans seem to be holding on to the majority of support from actual North Dakota voters.  But with Democrats pushing mountains of cash into their campaigns year after year, how long can Republicans hold on?

How Do We Fix The Problem?

A problem such as this is not an easy one to fix.  Interests from both the “red” and “blue” sides of the political spectrum pump billions of dollars into local political campaigns every year, and those interests aren’t about to give up their influence without a fight.  North Dakota Republicans, too, take their share of money from out of state interests and while the NDGOP is in no way dependent on that money as state Democrats are they still aren’t likely ]to give it up.  But citizens of North Dakota, and other states as well, should be asking themselves: Why should anyone but we, the constituents, be able to exercise influence over our elected leaders?  Citizens of other states already have representation in Congress, why should they be able to buy ours as well?

They shouldn’t be able to, which is why one solution to this problem would be a law mandating constituent-only contributions.  Meaning that a politician could only accept money that - no matter how many times its been transferred among political organizations and campaign funds - originated with someone who can actually legally vote for that politician.

After all, why should anyone but those who a politician represents be able to vote for that politician?

But given the realities of politics and money, and despite the sheer common sense of such a law, it is unlikely to pass.  So in the mean time we must rely on transparency and informed voters.  Yet there we hit a problem too.

Ask yourself: When was the last time you saw the above numbers exposed in the Bismarck Tribune?  When was the last time you read an expose in the Fargo Forum about how the North Dakota Democrat party gets inordinate amounts of money from Texas trial lawyers and California movie moguls?  Has a reporter from the Grand Forks Herald ever asked a state Democrat party official a tough question about where all their money comes from?

Unfortunately, these things don’t happen and I think the average North Dakota voter is done a great disservice as a result.  When a Democrat candidate shows up with slick-looking campaign commercials and cushy events at the finest establishments voters deserve to know that the candidate can afford those things not because of support from North Dakotans but because of support from people who aren’t North Dakotans.

The North Dakota Secretary of State’s office does a tremendous job in making political contribution disclosures available on the internet.  They are uploaded in a timely manner, are well-organized and relatively easy to access.  But even so, the average citizen doesn’t have time to comb through these records and the maze of donations and transfers they represent.  Which is why we need our journalists in the state to inform the public.

And if they won’t do the job on their own we need to shame them into doing it by refusing to be quiet about this issue.  North Dakotans should, of course, be able to vote blue if they want to vote blue.

But out-of-state blue interests shouldn’t be able to buy our elections.