Friday, April 02, 2004
The New Fat Cats win either way
Business Week has an in-depth article here on some of the various big money players in this year's presidential race. It details a few of the Hollywood liberals who are raising money to help John Kerry and some of the corporate CEOs that are raising big money for Bush.
One item of interest is how hi-tech CEOs, who previously backed Al Gore, are less fond of Kerry:
Now, perhaps Kerry will stop appealing to working families and soften his tone on trade and jobs to appeal more to the fat cats. (See Feb 17 Daily Post here suggesting that he will.) To many, this would appear corrupting as the big money interests get a candidate to change his tune more to their liking. Or, maybe Kerry will continue to stand up to the corporate interests, including Silicon Valley, and risk defeat when they withhold their support. This too would be corrupting because either way the big money interests get what they want -- someone in the White House who will take their side on issues of trade, jobs, and the economy.
Business Week has an in-depth article here on some of the various big money players in this year's presidential race. It details a few of the Hollywood liberals who are raising money to help John Kerry and some of the corporate CEOs that are raising big money for Bush.
One item of interest is how hi-tech CEOs, who previously backed Al Gore, are less fond of Kerry:
"Some tech leaders aren't thrilled with Kerry, especially after his populist primary campaign and the current fulminations about outsourcing. Such talk rankles Netscape Communications Corp. co-founder Marc L. Andreessen, now chairman of software firm Opsware Inc. (OPSW ) Kerry "is just running in the wrong direction" on trade, says Andreessen, who gave Democratic candidates $300,000 in 1996 and 2000 but hasn't given them a dime this time."
Now, perhaps Kerry will stop appealing to working families and soften his tone on trade and jobs to appeal more to the fat cats. (See Feb 17 Daily Post here suggesting that he will.) To many, this would appear corrupting as the big money interests get a candidate to change his tune more to their liking. Or, maybe Kerry will continue to stand up to the corporate interests, including Silicon Valley, and risk defeat when they withhold their support. This too would be corrupting because either way the big money interests get what they want -- someone in the White House who will take their side on issues of trade, jobs, and the economy.
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Pot Calls Kettle Black
Today, President Bush's campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against the big money being used by groups who are supportive of John Kerry. This is the same President Bush that has refused to abide by voluntary spending limits (and then Kerry followed suit), and who has raised a record amount of money from wealthy interests for his campaign.
The thing is, the Democrats seem to be doing better among the super rich while the Republicans are doing better among the simply rich (see March 15 Daily Post.) So, it will take 50 of Bush's Rangers, each raising $200,000 in $2000 chunks, to counter George Soros, who has given $10 million to various groups that are attacking Bush. And of course, it would take four thousand regular folks, each giving 50 bucks, to match the clout of just one Bush Pioneer. Neither the Rangers (mostly corporate execs) nor Soros (a wealthy liberal from New York city) really represents the rest of us.
All in all, Bush still has a huge lead. According to this Washington Post story, his campaign just spent $40 million on TV ads. Kerry's campaign spent about $6 million in the same period, and outside groups spent another $13 million in ads slinging mud at the president. I guess having a two-to-one big money advantage isn't good enough for George W. Bush.
Today, President Bush's campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against the big money being used by groups who are supportive of John Kerry. This is the same President Bush that has refused to abide by voluntary spending limits (and then Kerry followed suit), and who has raised a record amount of money from wealthy interests for his campaign.
The thing is, the Democrats seem to be doing better among the super rich while the Republicans are doing better among the simply rich (see March 15 Daily Post.) So, it will take 50 of Bush's Rangers, each raising $200,000 in $2000 chunks, to counter George Soros, who has given $10 million to various groups that are attacking Bush. And of course, it would take four thousand regular folks, each giving 50 bucks, to match the clout of just one Bush Pioneer. Neither the Rangers (mostly corporate execs) nor Soros (a wealthy liberal from New York city) really represents the rest of us.
All in all, Bush still has a huge lead. According to this Washington Post story, his campaign just spent $40 million on TV ads. Kerry's campaign spent about $6 million in the same period, and outside groups spent another $13 million in ads slinging mud at the president. I guess having a two-to-one big money advantage isn't good enough for George W. Bush.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Oil Heiress Fined for Secret Contributions
Caroline Getty, the granddaughter of oil magnate Paul Getty, has agreed to pay a $135,000 fine for violating campaign finance law by failing to disclose a million bucks that the gave to support environmental ballot questions in California. See the AP story here.
Setting aside the irony that big oil money is now being used to protect the environment, it's good to see the California Fair Political Practices Commission is enforcing the law with penalties high enough to deter future fat cats from hiding their political spending.
Caroline Getty, the granddaughter of oil magnate Paul Getty, has agreed to pay a $135,000 fine for violating campaign finance law by failing to disclose a million bucks that the gave to support environmental ballot questions in California. See the AP story here.
Setting aside the irony that big oil money is now being used to protect the environment, it's good to see the California Fair Political Practices Commission is enforcing the law with penalties high enough to deter future fat cats from hiding their political spending.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
The Wrong Solution to the Wrong Problem
Every couple of years, somebody comes up with what they think is a new idea: "Let's solve the problems of big money in politics by making donations anonymous." That way, the reasoning goes, politicians wouldn't know who they owed favors to, and there would be no corruption. A watered down version of this idea is to prevent bundling, where one fundraiser delivers a "bundle" of checks, and then the politicians knows where they all came from. By banning bundling, the same number of checks would come in, but the politician wouldn't know who to thank.
The idea never goes anywhere, because after about three seconds of thought, most people realize that it would accomplish precisely nothing. Even if politicians didn't know who was funding them, some politicians would still take positions favored by the trial lawyers, the oil industry, fat cat Hollywood liberals, Walmart, or any other big money special interest. Those politicians would raise gobs of money from these deep pockets. Meanwhile, other candidates (if they even bothered to run against the big money opposition) would take positions championed by school teachers, plumbers, waitresses, and engineers. Those politicians would raise a lot less money even though more people might actually be contributing to them. The reason? Oil executives and big wig lawyers can write a lot bigger checks than waitresses and plumbers, even if these checks are anonymous. So, we'd still have a system where the special interests got to determine who can successfully run for office, only we'd have an even harder time documenting it.
The latest incarnation of this idea comes from somebody called the IPundit. You can read it here.
Why do people keep coming up with this solution? Probably because too many reform proponents keep describing the problem in unhelpful ways. They act as if we have a bunch of wonderful people in office, who at the get go are accurately representative of the rest of us. But then, somebody walks into their office and hands them a check (or a big stack of many checks), and suddenly these good, honest people become corrupt and made a decision that does not represent the rest of us but instead benefits the donor. I'm not saying this never happens, but it's a pretty naive view of the world.
The scenario that is closer to reality is that we have the wrong politicians in office in the first place. They don't need to be corrupted by money because they are predisposed to take the special interests side on every occasion. Has anybody noticed that the former CEO of Halburton is now the Vice President of the United States? Does anyone think for one moment that Dick Cheney would be less favorable to Halburton, or other oil companies, if he didn't know how much money they gave him? Dick Cheney IS Halburton. Many members of Congress are basically special interests themselves. Letting big donors give them even more money, as IPundit advocates, and letting them do it anonymously would only make it that much easier for them to buy the election results that they want.
Every couple of years, somebody comes up with what they think is a new idea: "Let's solve the problems of big money in politics by making donations anonymous." That way, the reasoning goes, politicians wouldn't know who they owed favors to, and there would be no corruption. A watered down version of this idea is to prevent bundling, where one fundraiser delivers a "bundle" of checks, and then the politicians knows where they all came from. By banning bundling, the same number of checks would come in, but the politician wouldn't know who to thank.
The idea never goes anywhere, because after about three seconds of thought, most people realize that it would accomplish precisely nothing. Even if politicians didn't know who was funding them, some politicians would still take positions favored by the trial lawyers, the oil industry, fat cat Hollywood liberals, Walmart, or any other big money special interest. Those politicians would raise gobs of money from these deep pockets. Meanwhile, other candidates (if they even bothered to run against the big money opposition) would take positions championed by school teachers, plumbers, waitresses, and engineers. Those politicians would raise a lot less money even though more people might actually be contributing to them. The reason? Oil executives and big wig lawyers can write a lot bigger checks than waitresses and plumbers, even if these checks are anonymous. So, we'd still have a system where the special interests got to determine who can successfully run for office, only we'd have an even harder time documenting it.
The latest incarnation of this idea comes from somebody called the IPundit. You can read it here.
Why do people keep coming up with this solution? Probably because too many reform proponents keep describing the problem in unhelpful ways. They act as if we have a bunch of wonderful people in office, who at the get go are accurately representative of the rest of us. But then, somebody walks into their office and hands them a check (or a big stack of many checks), and suddenly these good, honest people become corrupt and made a decision that does not represent the rest of us but instead benefits the donor. I'm not saying this never happens, but it's a pretty naive view of the world.
The scenario that is closer to reality is that we have the wrong politicians in office in the first place. They don't need to be corrupted by money because they are predisposed to take the special interests side on every occasion. Has anybody noticed that the former CEO of Halburton is now the Vice President of the United States? Does anyone think for one moment that Dick Cheney would be less favorable to Halburton, or other oil companies, if he didn't know how much money they gave him? Dick Cheney IS Halburton. Many members of Congress are basically special interests themselves. Letting big donors give them even more money, as IPundit advocates, and letting them do it anonymously would only make it that much easier for them to buy the election results that they want.
Monday, March 29, 2004
The Power of Industry Lobbyists
Today's Washington Post has a story that sheds some interesting light on how corporate interests really are in the catbird's seat right now.
The story is chock full of beltway gossip about which industry power lobbyist is going to retire or be replaced in the coming year. One headhunter says, "You're talking about huge changeover in the real powers that be."
It's somewhat frightening that the "powers that be" are no longer elected officials, accountable to the people, but industry power barons. Indeed, corporate America spends way more on lobbying our elected officials than it does on influencing who gets elected. This is one sure sign that they in fact are pretty satisfied with our current crop of politicians. Clearly, the money they are spending on elections is working well enough to elect people who they are comfortable doing business with and lobbying.
The story says that "the lobbyists' clout has grown so much that D.C. decision-makers regularly rely on their information and insight to write new laws and regulations." Douglas Pinkham, head of a non-partisan group that studies lobbying says, "interest groups of all types have greater influence than they did 20 years ago."
Ultra-conservative Grover Norquist has figured out that the power is now with the lobbyists and has organized a project aimed at getting his buddies hired at various lobby firms.
Labor, on the other hand, seems to be focusing a lot more on elections rather than lobbying. Under current labor chief John Sweeney, labor has boosted their own members' turnout in elections. Union households now cast 1 out of 4 votes in elections, up from 1 in 7 in 1994. Keep in mind that this is while union membership is falling. Regardless of how you feel about organized labor, you have to admit that spending energy getting your members to register and vote is a better thing for democracy than industry hiring lobbyists to spoon-feed legislators bills they'd like to see passed.
So, labor has something going for it; and Hollywood, the trial lawyers, the automobile manufactures, drug companies, and chemical companies have their lobbyists looking out for them. But, what about the rest of us? Until we have a campaign finance system that elects people who will do our bidding, lobbyists in DC will continue to call the shots.
Today's Washington Post has a story that sheds some interesting light on how corporate interests really are in the catbird's seat right now.
The story is chock full of beltway gossip about which industry power lobbyist is going to retire or be replaced in the coming year. One headhunter says, "You're talking about huge changeover in the real powers that be."
It's somewhat frightening that the "powers that be" are no longer elected officials, accountable to the people, but industry power barons. Indeed, corporate America spends way more on lobbying our elected officials than it does on influencing who gets elected. This is one sure sign that they in fact are pretty satisfied with our current crop of politicians. Clearly, the money they are spending on elections is working well enough to elect people who they are comfortable doing business with and lobbying.
The story says that "the lobbyists' clout has grown so much that D.C. decision-makers regularly rely on their information and insight to write new laws and regulations." Douglas Pinkham, head of a non-partisan group that studies lobbying says, "interest groups of all types have greater influence than they did 20 years ago."
Ultra-conservative Grover Norquist has figured out that the power is now with the lobbyists and has organized a project aimed at getting his buddies hired at various lobby firms.
Labor, on the other hand, seems to be focusing a lot more on elections rather than lobbying. Under current labor chief John Sweeney, labor has boosted their own members' turnout in elections. Union households now cast 1 out of 4 votes in elections, up from 1 in 7 in 1994. Keep in mind that this is while union membership is falling. Regardless of how you feel about organized labor, you have to admit that spending energy getting your members to register and vote is a better thing for democracy than industry hiring lobbyists to spoon-feed legislators bills they'd like to see passed.
So, labor has something going for it; and Hollywood, the trial lawyers, the automobile manufactures, drug companies, and chemical companies have their lobbyists looking out for them. But, what about the rest of us? Until we have a campaign finance system that elects people who will do our bidding, lobbyists in DC will continue to call the shots.
