Chris Dodd: PAC-Man

White House dreams don't come cheap.

Since U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., announced his candidacy at the beginning of the year, he's spent over $9.7 million on his presidential bid. He hired a campaign staff ($2.2 million), rented and furnished offices to house them ($1.2 million and $310,000), and labored at his image: $1.5 million on television ads, $625,000 on political consultants and $350,000 on polling and research that—one should hope for that hefty price—offered great insights into the secrets of the American political psyche. But Dodd was a long-shot candidate from the start, and with less than two months before the Iowa caucuses, nothing he's done has changed that.

A campaign's worth of stamps, telephones and tanks of gas has to come from somewhere. In Dodd's case, that money has come—to a great degree—from big business. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, nearly half ($5.2 million) of the total $13.6 he had raised through September came from the very industries—finance, insurance and real estate—Dodd's charged with regulating as chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.

These industries mostly gave through "bundled" donations from individual employees, but they've also given through corporate political action committees. PACs are a legal end-run around campaign finance laws, which forbid corporations and unions from donating directly to federal candidates. Corporate fat cats have given more PAC money to Dodd, as a percentage of his total, than to any other presidential candidate from either party. By doing that, they've done what Dodd himself could not: They've transformed a self-deprecating, white-haired Connecticut senator into a pop culture icon—none other than the mighty PAC-Man. Whereas the Pac-Man of arcade fame chomped up points from neon ghosts, Dodd gobbles fund-raising dollars from shadowy corporate PACs.

In this presidential contest, which is fast on its way to being the first to break $1 billion, Dodd's $13.6 million looks a bit like re-heated leftovers from the Clinton-Obama-Edwards gala bash. Indeed, Dodd's fund-raising machine is decidedly small-time in comparison to the media-monopolizing trifecta of so-called "first-tier" candidates. But in his weight class, Dodd's a heavy-hitter. He's earned more than six times Dennis Kucinich's $2.1 million and some $5 million more than Joseph Biden—both of whom are polling near his one percent in the national polls.

The amount of money Dodd's bringing in from PACs—just four percent of his total, or $560,000—may seem measly, but in real dollars Dodd is second only to Hillary Clinton, who's taken $748,000 from PACs. Companies regulated by Dodd's banking committee have contributed at least $250,000 to Dodd's campaign through PACs.

Obama and Edwards, meanwhile, have sworn off PAC donations completely (though CQ MoneyLine's database shows Obama has received about $6,700 from PACs). Edwards has refused money from federal lobbyists and PACs since his 1998 Senate run, while Obama's come to the "clean money" party much more recently (he's brought in $1.3 million from PACs during his political career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics). Both men have criticized Clinton for accepting "special interest" money, though Obama acknowledges his imperfect record on the issue. "The argument is not that I'm pristine, because I'm swimming in the same muddy water [as the other candidates]," Obama told reporters in Iowa in August. "The argument is that I know it's muddy and I want to clean it up."

Edwards has taken a harder line. In October, he characterized Clinton's campaign as "the poster child for what's wrong in American politics today. They talk about changing the system, then they conduct business as usual." Edwards could have just as easily been criticizing Dodd.

As chair of the banking committee, Dodd's in a position to tap a particularly lucrative fund-raising base. Among Dodd's top donor companies are SAC Capital Advisors, a hedge fund with 800 or so employees that gave $339,500. Citigroup ($151,800), Royal Bank of Scotland ($129,050), Bear Stearns ($122,650) and Goldman Sachs ($106,200) also broke the $100,000 mark. The Hartford, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, PricewaterhouseCoopers, JP Morgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America all gave between $50,000 and $100,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which ranks the top 20 corporate donors based on the amount of "bundled" donations by a company's employees (and their immediate families) and corporate PAC money combined.

"It's not a surprise that he would rely on people from the financial industry to raise money," says Nick Nyhart, president of Public Campaign, a public financing advocacy group. "That's standard under our private financial system...In many cases, the donors are going to be people who have worked with him over a long period of time and who believe there's a good chance of continuing to work with him," says Nyhart.

*

Dodd's reliance on financial industry dough seems unusual, even in money-dependent Washington. On Oct. 17, The Hill reported that Dodd set up a lunch with "top executives in the equity and fixed-income trading divisions of the nation's largest banks" to recruit fund-raising bundlers.

The lunch—which was canceled for scheduling reasons, according to the story—was scheduled three weeks after Dodd's blog mocked Clinton, Obama and Edwards for sending food-centric fund-raising emails to their supporters: "We've received a few inquiries in the past week wondering when Chris Dodd is going to invite the email list out for a meal. Hillary's done it. Barack's done it. John Edwards taught his email list how to make a pecan pie...no, we aren't inviting you over to 'do lunch,' but we would like you to help Chris Dodd restore the Constitution on his first day in office." Fair enough, except that Dodd is arranging lunches. He's just doing it with Wall Street bankers instead of the netroots.

Unusual or not, Dodd's financial ties to the industries regulated by his committee are troublesome. If nothing else, they create the appearance of a conflict of interest, which diminishes Dodd's strongest selling point: his independent, progressive stance on substantive issues like domestic surveillance and the right of terrorist detainees to appear before judges.

Candidates who support public campaign financing are "in a bind," says Nyhart of Public Campaign. Nyhart credits Dodd with being one of the stronger advocates of public financing in the Senate. Even so, says Nyhart, presidential campaigns have to "raise huge amounts of money. If you want to raise a large amount of money you've got to put your arms around people who have an interest" in Congressional legislation.

Mary Boyle of Common Cause, another prominent campaign finance advocacy group, agrees. "What it reflects," says Boyle, "is we have a terribly broken campaign finance system. It is so expensive to run for office, particularly for president, people have to raise money from anyone who will give it to them. Unfortunately that includes people who have business before his committee."

Dodd didn't get all of his PAC money from finance, insurance and real estate industries. Some of it came from other candidates, labor unions and ideological and single-interest PACs. The overwhelming majority of it, however, comes from business interests, according to The Center for Responsive Politics. Of Dodd's PAC dollars, 79 percent came from business interests, while only 18 percent came from ideological interests and three percent from labor. But, says Boyle, "PAC money is not the real evils of all evils. The people we're concerned about are the bundlers, the Norman Hsus, the people who go around to their employees, their colleagues, their families and friends and collect the maximum donations."

The next major piece of legislation before Dodd's banking committee will likely target the sub-prime mortgage industry. Last week the House Financial Services Committee, by Democrat Barney Frank of Massachusetts, passed the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007, which would "reform consumer mortgage practices and provide accountability [and]...certain minimum standards for consumer mortgage loans." There's broad, if not unanimous, support among consumer advocates for stronger regulations of the mortgage industry. Dodd says he too supports regulations that protect home-buyers, and issued a statement praising Frank for his work.

Though he has yet to introduce legislation on sub-prime lending, Dodd's campaign says that he's active behind the scenes. In February, for example, Federal News Service reported that Dodd told Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that he was "very concerned about the predatory lending practices that go on" and that Bernanke's response to the sub-prime crisis "was a little inadequate."

Dodd, through his campaign, declined to be interviewed for this story. His campaign spokeswoman, Colleen Flanagan, released this statement in response to the Advocate's questions on Dodd's PAC contributions: "Senator Dodd has been and will continue to be a thoughtful and independent chairman who listens to all sides of an issue and enacts public policy that is in the best interest of the American people."

Dodd's campaign says the proof of his independence is his work against a controversial bankruptcy bill that passed in 2006, his co-authorship of key pieces of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act—Congress's response to the Enron scandal, which increased corporate accountability to shareholders—and his opposition to high credit card fees and the marketing of credit cards to minors. But Dodd's past accomplishments aren't going to keep people in their homes.

American Banker, a trade publication covering the financial services industry, recently reported on the lack of movement on Dodd's promised sub-prime legislation, writing that "little evidence has emerged to suggest that Sen. Dodd, who has a reputation as a dealmaker, is doing the bipartisan coalition-building that it would take to pass such legislation.

"Instead, he has been busy campaigning for president, which appears to rankle fellow lawmakers," writes Stacy Kaper, quoting Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who sits on the Senate Banking Committee. "Senator Dodd's preoccupation with some other things such as running for president has not put him here on a timely basis," says Bunning. "Even though there was a comprehensive bill [summary] written, there's been no one pushing it and there's been not much coordination between staffs."

Dodd's PAC booty may get less attention than the financial dealings of his competitors. But after his presidential campaign's over, Dodd will continue to be an influential senator and chair of the banking committee. Meredith McGehee, policy director for Campaign Legal Center, says that it's a "no lose proposition" for the PACs. "This is access money. These contributions from businesses," says McGehee, "insure that you have access. This is the pay to play system.

"When they go and have business before his committee, their support will make sure that they stay in good standing. This is interested money doing what interested money normally does. It reflects both his position in Congress—in a very powerful committee—and, in an ironic sort of way, it may reflect where they think he may end up." His donors, in other words, will probably get what they're after, whether Dodd survives the primary or not.

fmoon@newhavenadvocate.com

American Council of Life Insurers PAC
$4012

Nationwide PAC
$5000

Countrywide PAC
$10,000

National Association of Mortgage Brokers
$5000

Consumer Bankers Association PAC
$2000