Who Are the Bundlers?

Some presidential candidates are disclosing their financiers. The others need to follow suit.

THE 2008 presidential field has already begun to sort itself into candidates willing to disclose the identities of their big financiers and those who balk at providing this critical information. On the side of real disclosure are three Democrats, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, along with two Republicans, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and -- in the latest addition to the ranks of openness -- Mitt Romney. Officials of the former Massachusetts governor's campaign told us that Mr. Romney will report the names of his big bundlers, the fundraisers who collect donations from large numbers of people and who thereby help their candidate far beyond the maximum of $2,300 they are legally allowed to contribute directly. Declining to provide this information are Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, and Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani.

The refusal of these candidates to live up to the standards set by President Bush during his two campaigns, as well as by 2004 Democratic nominee John F. Kerry, speaks volumes about their commitment -- or lack thereof -- to openness in government. These candidates note, correctly, that they aren't obliged to reveal the names of their big bundlers. But in what could be the first presidential campaign since Watergate to be financed entirely with private funds, in an election cycle in which the two major-party nominees alone could raise and spend $1 billion, it's critical that the identities of those helping to underwrite these expensive enterprises be released. Candidates are as indebted to those who haul in big bundles of checks for them as they would be to those who write big checks. Since the latter practice is no longer allowed, big bundlers are the most important components of a successful financial operation.

Indeed, Ms. Clinton's campaign encourages "Hillraisers" to sign up on its Web site and set fundraising targets. For its biggest bundlers, the campaign has set the audacious goal of at least $1 million. Does the campaign really believe it's tenable to keep the identities of these financiers secret? What is its justification for doing so? We single out Ms. Clinton for a number of reasons, chief among them her front-runner status, her undoubted capacity for raising enormous sums and the unprecedented size of the bundles she is seeking.

But that does not excuse the refusal of her rivals in either party to be transparent about their own financial operations. Candidates who simultaneously hold elective office -- and who therefore have another claim on donors' attention -- ought to be especially conscious of this duty. Connecticut Democrat Dodd, whose chairmanship of the Senate Banking Committee offers him a handy fundraising platform, promises to do the right thing. We've had no luck getting answers from other elected officials, including New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.).

Mr. Edwards, alone among Democratic candidates in 2004 in refusing to disclose the names of his bundlers, is well aware of both the value and peril of bundlers; his campaign was fined $9,500 by the Federal Election Commission last year for accepting in-kind contributions and illegally reimbursed donations from one of its big 2004 bundlers. Mr. Giuliani, too, knows the benefits of bundling: A 1996 report by the New York City campaign finance board, "Bundles of Trouble?" detailed how Mr. Giuliani had 205 "intermediaries" bring in more than $1 million to his 1993 mayoral campaign. "Like direct contributions, bundled contributions can be a means for buying access, influence and political power," the report noted. That is exactly why the names of bundlers should be a matter of public record.