Nice Try Supreme Court, But All Our Legislators Have Already Been Purchased
Image by Limbic via Flickr
Yes, the Supreme Court opened up a new floodgate that will hose down our political process with another gusher of special interest money. But it’s not like money isn’t already drowning the system, so my cynicism meter has only ticked up a notch (it goes to 11), particularly after a little tour of recent news from the world of lobbying and vote-buying:
Item 1: President Obama is finally getting tougher on the taxpayer-insured Wall Street casino, but legislating meaningful new regulations won’t be easy because the banks most-targeted by Obama’s new proposals have dumped buckets of cash totaling $63 million on key legislators since 2000, and threw down another $109 million on lobbying. Here’s a summary via HuffPo:
According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, the four banks represented on Wednesday’s panel — Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase — have donated more than $63 million to members of Congress since the 2000 election cycle. “During this same period, these companies spent $109 million to lobby Congress,” the group added. The totals are broken down as follows
Goldman Sachs
Campaign contributions: $24.3 million, Lobbying expenditures: $17.2 millionMorgan Stanley
Campaign contributions: $14.1 million, Lobbying expenditures: $20.8 millionBank of America
Campaign contributions: $10.8 million, Lobbying expenditures: $20.4 millionJP Morgan Chase
Campaign contributions: $14.1 million, Lobbying expenditures: $51.3 million
Hey, it’s nice to know that these CEOs do, in fact, know how to make smart investments. The industry as a whole does too, spending $41 million on member of the Senate Banking Committee over the past 4 years. ConsumerWatchdog.org has a handy-dandy table:
Good luck, Mr. President. I’m rooting for you.
Item 2: Yup, health care is in trouble thanks to Scott Brown. But one reason the health care bill is still on the table for him to block (instead of passed and signed) is the money-fueled rear-guard action health-care interests fought through 2009. The Center For Responsive Politics breaks down some of the most generous players:
The U.S. Chamber Commerce, one of the leading opponents of Democratic plans to reform health insurance and tackle climate change, spent about $79.2 million during the final three months of 2009 on lobbying.
This brings its total expenditures for the year to a jaw-dropping $144.5 million. This represents an increase of nearly 60 percent compared to the amount the Chamber spent in 2008, the Center for Responsive Politics has found…[snip]
The drug industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) spent $6.3 million on federal lobbying during the last three months of the year, bringing their total spending for 2009 up to $26 million. This represents an increase of about 30 percent over their spending on federal lobbying in 2008.
And talk about synergy: in July the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief supporting the Supreme Court decision striking down corporate limits on campaign spending. Man, they must be popping the champagne open and ordering new checkbooks over there.
Plus–again according to the Center For Responsive Politics (do you think they intend that name to be ironic?)–the Health industry as a whole is buying plenty of influence in the current 2010 election cycle, dropping more than $31 million on all candidates, and more than $27 million on incumbents. It’s always so much better to buy a politician already in office than take the chance your money will be wasted in a losing election.
Item 3: One industry that is thriving in the Great Recession is the lobbying shops through which so much of this cash is funneled. The National Journal has some numbers on how the big player on K St. are doing:
Firm 2009 vs 2008 Fees
1. Patton Boggs $40.8 mln vs $39.2 million
2. Akin Gump $32.3 mln vs $34.4 million
3. Van Scoyoc $28.07 mln vs $25.8 mln
4. Podesta Group $25.6 million vs $15.9 mln
5. Brownstein Hyatt & Farber $23.5 mln vs $14.96
6. Ogilvy Government Relations $21.8 mln vs $21.7 million
7. Holland & Knight $21.7 mln vs $14.6 mln
8. Cassidy & Assoc $21.5 mln vs $23.3 mln
9. Dutko $19.35 mln vs $20.2 mln
10. K& L Gates $18.5 mln vs $14.99 mln
I could go on (and on and on and on), but I don’t want you to slit your wrists (or kick the dog). What’s clear is that the Supreme Court is simply allowing more money to rain down onto an already super-saturated system. It’s not a game-changer because the game is already solidly rigged.
What’s also clear is that legislating and regulating against this influence-buying mega-mall–a supply-side solution–is a failure. Smart lobbyists, smart lawyers, a politicized, activist Supreme Court, whatever, always find a way to wriggle past the rules. The money always ends up in the right pockets.
So if you really want to push the money out of politics and get your democracy back you need to sign onto a demand-side solution which requires one simple thing: you have to refuse to vote for candidates who take any PAC and special interest money. Doesn’t matter how much you like a candidate, or like the agendas of some of the interests writing the candidate checks. You have to take a principled, absolutist stand and let candidates know it. And if enough voters do this, they will put in Congress representatives who refuse to take the money that lobbyists and interests want to throw at them, even though it is legal money. It’s the only way.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
If we refuse to vote under those circumstances, we won’t have anyone to vote for.
So, this post actually makes me feel better. Things are so bad, the ruling will only make them a little bit worse.
Only, I doubt you’re right. I think things could get a lot worse.
I’ve been sick about this. Oh, it’s definitely going to get worse.
In response to another comment. See in context »Glad you found the photo well-matched. I was chuckling as I added it to the post, and I found it by entering the search term “plutocrat” into a very cool photo app for WordPress called Zemanta. I agree the demand-side solution is a stretch, but it really is the only solution so we had all better get busy promoting it.
In response to another comment. See in context »Corps have been known to fund both candidates- just more to the one they like. Hedging bets.
In response to another comment. See in context »The Insurance Industry is even worse than the banks. The insurance industry doesn’t have to comply with federal antitrust laws (because of the McCarran Ferguson Act). According to the following article, the insurance industry has contributed more than $35 million to our U.S. Congressman since 2005.
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-14-2009/0005026194&EDATE=
Photo selection win!
I’d also like to congratulate you on your photo-selection skills. Not that you cared, but that was the second CD I ever owned, after Young MC’s ‘Stone Cold Rhymin’.
And while I think you’re right on the futility of most regulation, I’m even less hopeful of the demand-side solution. Sigh.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tim Zimmermann, Tweets Tube. Tweets Tube said: Nice Try Supreme Court, But All Our Legislators Have Already Been Purchased http://bit.ly/4L9wtA [...]
Just When you think it cant be any worse, it just did! Maybe if we just vote out every incumbent? No matter what the party?
[...] true that I don’t think the Supreme Court decision lifting limits on corporate spending for indirect political ads will [...]
[...] Citizens United will open the tap a bit more, but it’s not clear after all the existing spending there is much more influence they can buy. And you could even say that direct spending by corporations on political speech (as opposed to [...]