Balkinization  

Monday, October 30, 2006

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."

Comments:

Professor Tamanaha: Here's the answer: "That's the way the system works, Tamanaha, so stop being naive."

Prof, I finally saw "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" for the first time this weekend. Yeah, it's sappy and naive and even a little black-and-white...but the main theme is as true now as ever. If the Smith's and Tamanaha's give up their "naivete" then who will be left to hold the legislature's feet to the fire? Keep the faith, eh?
 

It's first tu after the first monday ...

Corporations have a major role in society, so the fact they want to affect legislators involved in regulating them in a myriad of ways is not exactly surprising. I'm sorry to say I also think (w/i reason) this is okay.

[Corporations are not just nonentities, but companies millions work for. Their well being w/in reason is the well being of the workers too. That "w/in reason" is the rub though, huh?]

Corporations aren't the only one "bribing" legislators if we want to focus on campaign dollars. If we want to change the way we fund elections, fine, but don't just focus on them.

Do you think Madison's compatriots were just chosen because of disinterested gentleman voting their conscience. Oh please.

As to Mr. Smith, in the 1930s, the Senate had a cloture rule as a result of filibustering by progressives before WWI. The idealism isn't as fictional, but it will have to survive reality.
 

I would love a link showing that corporations have donated 2.6 billion. I almost positive that is figure is wrong. Last I heard, 2.6 billion was the TOTAL donated -- not the sum for corporations. I could be wrong, but it would be the first time... ;)
 

Corporations suffer extortion by lawmakers at least as often as they bribe them, but I suppose acknowleging that makes the case for "reform" legislation written by the guilty parties a bit iffy.
 

Sorry about the mix up on dates. Nov. 7th it is (that was dumb!). Although I do not have the article before me, I believe humblelaw student is correct that the figure cited is the total amount, rather than just corporate donations, although corporations supply most of this amount. Sorry about the sloppiness. That's what I get for posting quickly. Thanks readers!
 

Your post mirrors some of the reasons I voted for Ralph Nader in 04. He tried to get corporate influence into the conversation, but when both parties are mainlining money from those corporations, and those same corporations own the major media outlets, naifs like Ralph are DOA.
 

You know you're in love when you can't fall asleep because reality is finally better than your dreams.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home