Another Sign of a Likely Democratic Party Victory on November 7, and that Little Will Change

Brian Tamanaha

Among the many polls and other indications of the likely Congressional gains by the Democratic Party on November 7th, one of the most compelling signs is this report in the New York Times about a flurry of late giving to Democrats by corporate groups. For example, from January of this year through September, Pfizer had given 67 percent of its donations to Republicans, but it gave 59 percent to Democrats in October; similarly, Lockheed gave 70 percent to Republicans through September, but 60 percent to Democrats in October.

Clearly, the smart money is now betting on Democrats. The article reports that this is the "first double-digit October switch since 1994," when the Republicans seized control of Congress.

Democratic operatives can barely contain their glee at the sudden flow of money and attention they are now receiving from corporate lobbyists. "People are excited," said the Executive Director of the party's Congressional committee, after a recent party briefing attended by more than 100 lobbyists. Pausing to dab the drool off her chin, she continued, "It was, by far, the best attended one ever." (Okay, I made up that drool part.)

The article describes one Democratic candidate, who "has already been telephoning some members of the Washington business lobby, offering an opportunity to begin a good relationship if he wins election." "Many of these meet and greet sessions will have a dual purpose: political action committees will offer contributions to help candidates wipe away debt their campaigns accrued during the race."

That says a lot about the prospects that a Democratic controlled Congress will enact meaningful lobbying reforms.

Centrist Democratic Representative Adam Smith said, "I hope that the new Democratic majority will take a more open and cooperative approach. I hope there won't be a sense of, 'Oh, you gave too much money to Republicans, so we're not going to talk to you.'"

There is nothing wrong with "talking" to corporate interests, of course. The problem is that these corporate interests funnel and withhold huge sums of money--$2.6 billion in this mid-term election--that inevitably has an impact on the decision making of legislators. Corporations would not be investing that kind of money without getting a real return. Yet legislators from both parties piously insist that these contributions have no impact.

The situation reminds me a bit of a study I read about a decade ago of pervasive corruption in the Indonesian Court system. Judges were routinely given money by litigants in the cases before them. Since they were given money by both sides in the case, however, they insisted that the contributions did not improperly sway their decisions.

Using the same kind of reasoning, corporations are not buying the favors of one political party or the other, because they give tons of money to both. Of course, the difference with the Indonesian situation is that corporate money is not matched or balanced on the other side (please don't say labor unions, environmental groups, and plaintiff's lawyers give lots too--it is a piddling amount by comparison). Corporate interests don't need to pick one party over the other when they can effectively buy special consideration from both parties. Republicans might be more friendly to corporate interests, but Democrats want to be friends as well.

What is more cynical: corporations using big money to sway the decisions of legislators, or legislators eagerly seeking corporate money, suggesting that it will be money well spent?

Corporations can at least justify their conduct as consistent with maximizing profits, which is their purpose (though some would say that corporations also have duties to their community). However, how do legislators justify their aggressive solicitation of money from private interests--that expect something in return--when their duty is to the public good?

Here's the answer: "That's the way the system works, Tamanaha, so stop being naive."
Posted 3:19 PM by Brian Tamanaha [link]