CE Week #8: “As Campaigns Chafe at Limits, Donors Might Be in Diapers”
By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 24, 2007; A06
Elrick Williams’s toddler niece Carlyn may be one of the youngest contributors to this year’s presidential campaign. The 2-year-old gave $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
So did her sister and brother, Imara, 13, and Ishmael, 9, and her cousins Chan and Alexis, both 13. Altogether, according to newly released campaign finance reports, the extended family of Williams, a wealthy Chicago financier, handed over nearly a dozen checks in March for the maximum allowed under federal law to Obama.
Such campaign donations from young children would almost certainly run afoul of campaign finance regulations, several campaign lawyers said. But as bundlers seek to raise higher and higher sums for presidential contenders this year, the number who are turning to checks from underage givers appears to be on the rise.
“It’s not difficult for a banker or a trial lawyer or a hedge fund manager to come up with $2,300, and they’re often left wanting to do more,” said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. “That’s when they look across the dinner table at their children and see an opportunity.”
Asked about the Williams family giving, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, “As a policy, we don’t take donations from anyone under the age of 15.” After being asked by The Post about the matter, he said the children’s donations will be returned.
Although campaign finance laws set a limit of $2,300 per donor per campaign, they do not explicitly bar donors based on age. And young donors abound in the fundraising reports filed by presidential contenders this year.
A supporter of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R), Susan Henken of Dover, Mass., wrote her own $2,300 check, and her 13-year-old son, Samuel, and 15-year-old daughter, Julia, each wrote $2,300 checks, for example. Samuel used money from his bar mitzvah and money he earned “dog sitting,” and Julia used babysitting money to make the contributions, their mother said. “My children like to donate to a lot of causes. That’s just how it is in my house,” Henken said.
Just how much campaign cash is coming from children is uncertain — the FEC does not require donors to provide their age. But the amount written by those identifying themselves as students on contribution forms has risen dramatically this year, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. During the first six months of the 2000 presidential campaign, students gave $338,464. In 2004, that rose to $538,936.
This year, the amount has nearly quadrupled, to $1,967,111.
“What’s driving it is a desire by maxed-out donors to max out on their maxing out,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of campaign finance reform organization Democracy 21, who sought, unsuccessfully, to outlaw child donations five years ago. “More often than not, you’re dealing with people who are simply trying to circumvent the limits of what they can give.”
Congress tried to outlaw political contributions from those under age 18 as part of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002, but the Supreme Court struck down that provision as an infringement on the constitutional rights of minors. With that ruling in mind, the Federal Election Commission wrote new regulations two years ago that tried to balance what it considered a legitimate desire among some children to make political contributions against the possibility that parents would seek to pad their donations by funneling money through children.
The regulations established a three-step test to determine whether a contribution is acceptable: It must be made with the child’s money, the parent cannot reimburse the child for making the donation and the contribution has to be knowing and voluntary.
That last part of the test is the one that would seem to rule out a 2-year-old, said Michael E. Toner, a former FEC chairman who helped draft the rules. “If they are 16 or 17, they’re clearly old enough to know what they’re doing, as compared to someone who is, say, 10 years old. . . . I don’t know any 2-year-old who is capable of making that kind of decision.”
Paula Madison, a Los Angeles entertainment executive who is one of Elrick Williams’s sisters (he referred calls to her), said Williams had not been regularly involved in political fundraising but got excited about the notion of seeing an African American elected president. He talked to every member of the family about his desire to help Obama. One relative served as a trustee for a fund set up for Williams’s children, nieces and nephews, Madison said.
They believed that because a trustee was legally responsible for handling the children’s money, that trustee could make the donations on their behalf. “This wasn’t about routing money through the children,” Madison said. “It wasn’t like, ‘We’ll do this under someone else’s name.’ ”
Lawrence Noble, a former FEC general counsel, said the involvement of a trustee can help prove that the child used his or her own money — which is important — but does not, on its own, make the contribution legal.
This is the second time in two months that the Obama campaign has returned contributions from young children. The first involved donations from Maryland developer Aris Mardirossian’s two children, Matthew, 8, and Karis, 7; each contributed $2,300 to Obama’s primary campaign and $2,300 more for a possible general-election contest.
Although the campaign immediately returned the money, Mardirossian, who along with his wife also gave maximum contributions to Obama, said he saw no need for the campaign to do so.
“My children are very engaged in politics, Mardirossian said. “The whole family is engaged. Every Sunday we get together, all the cousins, everybody comes and talks about politics. The children sit down and listen to the debates and everything.”
Helen Maloof Aranda offered a terse explanation when asked how her two children, ages 10 and 16, came to donate the maximum allowed to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s Democratic presidential bid — some of the more than $32,000 in contributions that Maloof family members gave Richardson.
“We just support him,” Aranda said when reached at the family’s Santa Fe beer distributorship.
Research editor Alice Crites and staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/10/24/ce-week-8-as-campaigns-chafe-at-limits-donors-might-be-in-diapers/trackback/
Awkward. Why should it matter how old person donating is? I mean I suppose, if you’re not old enough to vote, you shouldn’t be old enough to give campaigners some of your hard earned cash…but…seriously!
If the law says that any donating party has to be donating their own damned money…well… to be honest those kids might be crazy… yeah… $2,300 dollars to some guy running for president… college money… hm… I’m starting to think that perhaps college is more important…? Not to say that playing somewhat of a role in who the leader of the country ISN’T important but. Seeing as how the guy you support might not make president, and adding in the factor of “what will he DO with my money once I give it too him?” It makes me wonder why these kids are doing it in the first place. At first, I thought, “aww… cute… kids giving money!” but as I read I thought, ‘wait a minute…oh dear lord…’
That is ridiculous! Actually that kind of sounds like something that Kautzman would do. (No offense Kautzman, but I mean come on you did nickname your kid el presidente.) I think that maybe some of these kids really might want to help the campaign if they are like super smart rich geniuses, but most likely not. Really what this reminded me of, was when we watched the clips on the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses and primaries, and the little kid asked if one of the candidates was pro-life or not. The question is how did they learn this stuff? I know when I was that small I had no clue where babies came from, so how in the heck would I know what abortion was. And another thing why would you, as a young kid, want to give away $2,300? That is insane! This could cause a major problem in the future, because people could right checks in the name of their hypothetical children to fund campaigns, which in the long run could screw up the whole system. But I guess with the Federal Election Campaign Act it would look really suspicious to the FEC if there were millions of dollars coming from the same family. Honestly, I really doubt that some of these kids are actually donating to the campaign. It is most likely their parents because they want their candidate to win. Seriously what people will do for a W.
Wow, sometimes it’s amazing when an epiphany occurs, such as this one involving illegal funding. I say illegal funding because that’s exactly what it is. I’m sorry, but when I was 15 I was not spending my “bar mitzvah” money on politics; I spent it on toys and games. Not many teens under 15, if any, like politics or even understand much about it. If a child did happen to come across $2,300, I’m sure that they would follow any advice given to them by their parents. How can this not be a red flag to any FEC officers? I would like to see a new piece of legislation passed that would ban donations by all people under the age of 18. I think that if you are not allowed to vote, you should not have any impact on the campaigns. Wait till your 18 and you might realize you need to save some of that “dog sitting” money for more relevant issues. I am 18 and a registered voter and I am not sure that if I had $2,300 to simply toss away, if I would spend it on a politician that may not even win. I would rather see the money donated by children under 18 to a charity supporting cancer or AIDS research. Obviously the two year olds research does not meet the requirements; however I feel that all the rest of children’s donations are also illegal. It seems fairly obvious to me that Mr. Williams is trying to launder money through his family. So I would be more than happy to the new law passed outlawing donations from people under 18 years old.
Connor Christeson
After digesting the article it seems almost like a novelty. A 2-year old donating to a campaign. Although it seems rather strange personally I don’t have a problem with it on the basis that the parent is supposed to make good decisions for the children and this May be one of them. The parent could believe very strongly that if said candidate gets elected that their child will then go on and have a better life than if another candidate had gotten elected. Personally I think that is kind of a good idea. However I do agree that many children are probably just being used to get around the campaign finance laws but when you think about this its really the politicians fault for not really trying to fix the problems and instead allowing other avenues to use. I have a hard time seeing how this could be changed though because age is not required when donating to a campaign and even if the age is determined how can they then going about checking everybody to see if they actually want to contribute or if the parents are just using the children to get around the laws. In the end it is very interesting to see that some of the candidates are giving back donations made from children…
I think it’s pretty ridiculous that there are kids out there writing $2,300 checks to finance campaigns. First of all, it’s highly unlikely that many of these kids are truly doing this because they want to. When I was a kid, I thought that $5 was a fortune and was only going to use it for something that would benefit me directly. I think we can all agree: most kids think that way. If a kid really had enough money that was truly theirs, I don’t think they would spend it to finance a campaign. (Also, I want to know where I can get a dog-sitting job that makes $2,300.) If these kids truly do have this much money themselves that they are free to spend however they’d like (which I’m guessing in not the case in many of these instances), and they are choosing to donate it to a cause, I think a charity of some sort (maybe to help the poor) would be much more beneficial to the human race. While there are definitely a lot of people out their donating their time and money to good causes, I think this article goes to show that some people could use a reality check. Let’s spend the big bucks helping the people who need it most.
A two year old. Donating money. This is plausible how?
My question, I suppose, is WHY don’t we require the ages of the contributers?
We don’t need names probably, but just simply the ages. To make sure that things are legal, to make sure things aren’t weird like this.
All I really have to say is I don’t understand why we aren’t requiring ages.
Meh.
Twenty-three hundred dollars, well I can’t even remember the last time I touched that much money. I mean, I can, but not that much legitimate money. My point is Graham Von Moneybags has gots a son named Flippy, and Flippy the dear boy, at sixteen hasn’t got to pay insurance on his audi, didn’t have to buy the audi, has only to buy private-school plaid-o uniforms per clothing, so there is very little for him to throw the half-million dollar advance on his trust fund at besides the occasional coke-binge or Peruvian “manservant.” Perhaps in his freetime (between tennis lessons and taking Jennifer + fifth of Jäger to the lake on the jetboat) if he danes to dip into the political pool then let his dollars fly (after all, I’m sure he’ll support dem democrats). The more likely situation is that Daddy Graham gets his jollies of shaking B. Hussein O’bama’s hand and floats like a bird whence signing that check and just nnneeeds to get a little higher (just a little more) so his minor miscreant being also of minor age has an open chest of droors from which daddy can “borrow” some cash to get his fix. Either way I ain’t got too much of a problem with it. I like that the young can be part of the life-giver of the political process (after all, money is the mother’s milk of politics). I think that the three qualifications, while they will let through a lot of junky padres, will stop the two year olds from being pawns and will provide the media plenty of ground to stand on while sniping the candidates, for media pressure has more force than the law in these techno-nutty campaigns.
The principle of a child donating to a candidate’s presidential campaign is entirely justified under two conditions: the child must have a sufficient understanding of politics and the candidate to know what they are contributing to and the money should be personally earned. However, how old must a child be to really understand the workings of politics? Setting the line at 18 would seem logical because that is when minors can legally vote; however, what about politically active 15, 16, and 17 year olds? Personally, if I had $2300 of my own money lying around, I would not spend it on a candidate who I could not legally vote for. I would want to validate my donation with a vote. While money is an essential element of the campaign process, the quality of the campaign is more important – Ross Perot spent $60 million of his personal fortune in the 1992 election, but in the end he still lost. The votes are, ultimately, what count. It is wonderful that children as young as 10 or 11 are showing an interest in politics, considering the dismally low voter turnout in recent elections; however, it does not seem practical for parents to be expressing their personal ideologies by contributing vicariously through children too young to vote or even understand the issues. This is just a case of people cheating and looking for loopholes. Ah well, who ever said politics was practical?
Garbage.
Yeah, I think it’s garbage. What 7 year old in their right mind would agree to donate 2300 dollars to some guy they don’t even know, much less a political campaign? I have a 10-year-old sister who won’t lend me five dollars for gas because she wants to buy a Polly Pocket outfit. I’m her own flesh and blood!!! There is no way that any kid is that interested in politics in the first place. Let’s be completely hypothetical and say that there is some kid out there wearing “Go Obama” underwear and carrying around The Audacity of Hope, would this child willingly donate 2,300 dollars? Or should I say 2,300 ice cream cones, or 1,500 hot wheel cars, or every Disney movie they could ever think of? Point number 2- I’m not Jewish but is it typical for a kid to receive nearly 2300 dollars because dog sitting sure as heck doesn’t pay that well!? It’s completely ridiculous. And since when can a 15-year-old high school freshman scrap 2300 dollars together babysitting. I swear to you, anyone that worked nearly 500 hours babysitting isn’t just going to be like “Why don’t you take this money I earned changing diapers, cleaning up messes and making a million snacks a day and go print up a few more thousand cardboard signs.” Forget ‘minor’s rights’ and just be logical. Anytime a 2-year-old donates any amount of money to a presidential candidate, call me crazy but I think something just isn’t right.
This article is absolutely ridiculous. 2 year-olds, now this is getting a little out of hand. I know over the past few weeks, we’ve been talking about soft money and hard money and all the different loopholes. Well here’s a pretty big one. I think it’s really funny that people have found a way to talk politics through their children, and the actions that they are supposedly taking. It’s interesting to see how people try to find their ways around the laws, especially this one. It started with the soft money, and that was removed giving us hard money, a set amount, which changes every once in a while in amount. As Madison said in the article, “It wasn’t like, ‘We’ll do this under someone else’s name.’” After reading that, I was actually a little mad. I hate to point out your flaw buddy, but that’s exactly what a lot of these people are doing. I’d match a donation if Madison could prove to me that the two year-old knew who she was supporting, that person’s stances on topics, and that person’s general overview of things. If that toddler could tell me what was going on in politics, I think we have a female toddler who might do better in our government than a lot of current representatives, senators, governors, and state officials in general. Heck I know what I’ll do. I can always donate, I mean, my dog could donate $2,300 to Obama’s campaign to give him another sign on the streets.
Whoa whoa whoa.
How is it justified? The child must be able to understand politics? Last time I checked, not even these ten year olds we are talking about understood or much less cared about politics at all.
I don’t quite agree with that.
Though the maturity process takes a long time, I think 18 is the safest bet. After all Amanda, if it is justified by the understanding of politics, why aren’t we letting these minors vote, hmm??
That’s my question.
Also, honestly, I’ve never EVER run into any child below at LEAST 15 who was semi interested in politics.
And even if I did, I think they would be saving their “hard earned” cash for college.
This is absolutely CRAZY!!!! I totally agree with basically everyone on this subject. What is our world coming to?!? If two-year-olds are making donations to presidential campaigns, then our sanity has left the building! You have got to be kidding me. You can’t honestly believe that a toddler is making a $2,300 donation of its own accord?! And if, like I truly believe, that they are not, why the heck are their parents making donations under their names?? What is that going to accomplish? Proving that you’re insane?!? There is also no way that these kids have any idea what they are supporting! They are too busy trying to watch “Dora the Explorer” and getting “potty-trained.”If these toddlers had an understanding of what was going on, well then I would start teaching them to drive because then they are obviously that advanced. Personally if I was a candidate and found out that someone who is still in diapers was making a donation, I don’t think that I would accept it. You know that the money is still technically coming from the parent but it is still too weird. I even believe that a donation of large quantities coming from a 15-year-old is too much. I would feel like I was going against my conscious.
That is just stupid! Anyone who thinks that it is okay for a child under the age of fifteen to donate to a campaign has a few screws loose. Personally if I grew up and discovered that when I was two years old I had donated $2,300 to a campaign I would be pissed. That money could have gone to something worth my while…perhaps college. I suppose it would be more understandable if my parent’s were stinkin rich and $2,300 wasn’t any big deal, but that usually isn’t the case. I believe that there should be a limit to how old a person is to donate. A two year old has no idea what that money is going to. When a child is old enough to understand what they are doing then they can make the donation. There are probably other ways of adults donating money to a campaign. There are probably plenty of loopholes. I am glad to hear that Obama is returning the donations that came from the children. That shows a lot about his character. The chart in the article is also very interesting. It seems that as time progresses more and more money from youth goes to the democrats. This kind of goes along with retrospective thinking and the question “What have you done for me lately?” As the War in Iraq proceeds the more our youth turns towards Democratic fundraising. This is not surprising to me at all however.
I somewhat disagree with what most people have said so far. While, I really could not see how a two year old could write a check of $2,300 to any candidate, to decline a person’s money donation is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it restricts a person’s first amendment, the freedom of speech. If a person chooses to donate their own money, the FEC (Federal Election Commission) cannot keep the campaign from receiving their money. If an age limit is set, it would have to be a low age, but even then, families would fight saying that their kid is an exception- Of course their child is a “self-made genius” at the age of two who stays on top of politics! Families are going to say that their kids worked for their money or are conscious of their personal donation. The chance of a kid spending $2,300 on a political campaign is slight when they could be buying the newest Barbie or Transformer toy. Yes, we do not believe that the people’s children are spending their own cash, but no, we do not have the right to stop them. If anything is going to be done about these money donations it is up to the candidates to do it. Candidates should do what is right and not allow money donations from young kids. The chances of that happening are poor when the candidates might lose the parent’s vote.
Wow, so I’m 18, and I made like barely $2300 over the summer, but a two year old can have that amount of money, without a job? I agree with everyone that this is just someone exploiting a loophole in the system, and that there is not even a remote chance that a two year old even knows who Barack Obama is. I think they should redo the law and limit it to 18 year olds as the minimum age. That way, we wouldn’t be experiencing “political socialization via parents” – 18 year olds will support who they want to, not who their parents tell them to. It just makes me realize how silly our laws are, and that our citizens are always ‘crazy’ enough to exploit every flaw in them. The worst part is it is perfectly legal.
So ya, did anyone else notice the fact that this mostly affects the Democrats (look at the graphs)? I’m just wondering why; although I’m not entirely surprised by this.
Also, another thing I noticed in the article was that if Obama is turning away all the money from young people, what is Hillary doing? Accepting it all? The article made no mention about her…
-Jason Wong
The idea of a two year old IS crazy and seemingly illegal, but the fact is this is politics in the U.S. People will do anything to get a hold of money, no matter where and who they get it from. By the way, I am in no way encouraging this situation since, like most people have said on here, the fact that anybody under the age of 15 even considering politics seems a little unreal. I am sure that there are some, but for the most part the number is small. I have a feeling their parents were a bigger part of the donation then the children were anyway. Sure, its “the child’s money”, but seriously, most children do not even pay attention to what is going on in the political world. It actually makes me a little disapointed that something like this goes on so frequently in our country. These children, or at least their money, is being taken advantage of.
Brynna, I said it was justified under two conditions: if the child thoroughly understands the nature of what they are donating to, and if the money is owned by their own blood, sweat, and tears. You cannot make arbitrary comments based on the ten year olds you happen to have come in contact with. While not all young children may show an understanding, let alone an interest, in politics, that does not mean that all are disinterested and undereducated in the subject. Even if the first criterion is met, they still have to jump through the hoop of raising the $2300 themselves. Furthermore, Brynna, I asked the very same question as you: why aren’t politically active teens allowed to vote? What makes 18 so special? In my opinion, many 18 year olds lack maturity. Laws should be flexible, not one-size-fits-all, but unfortunately, that is not entirely realistic.