|
Al Gore, Bill Bradley, John McCain have admitted it. George
W. Bush would rather not talk about it. But everybody knows
it: The 2000 presidential election is being driven by big
money. Worse, the big corporations and the rich people who are
financing the campaign want something in return for their
money. And whatever it is, it isn’t good for working people.
Every day, the unions affiliated with the Labor Party have
to deal with corporations that have more political clout than
we do. At the moment, these corporations are working hard to
ensure that, no matter who is elected, they’ll have a
sympathetic ear in the White House in 2001. Increasingly, this
means giving generously to both Democrats and Republicans.
Corporate contributions to the House Democratic Party, for
instance, are up sharply this year, partly thanks to the
efforts of House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt. The
Missouri congressman has been assuring corporate donors that
the Democrats will be extra-pro business in the coming
political season.
 |
"You
try to do what is right for both parties." |
 |
—
Larry Hamilton of Northrop Grumman Corporation
in the Wall
Street Journal, March 14, 2000 Northrop
Grumman gave $12,000 to House Democrats last year, and
$10,000 to Republicans |
|
Photos
©2000 Rommel Pecson, Impact Visuals
|
We thought we’d examine the scruffy underbelly of the
2000 election by tracking the money a handful of employers are
funneling to the top two presidential contenders, Al Gore and
George Bush, as well as runners-up Bill Bradley and John
McCain. What have corporations (especially those whose workers
are represented by Labor Party–affiliated unions)
contributed to these campaigns, and how? And what are they
hoping to buy?
It seems money seeps into the political process like water
into a leaky old basement: It oozes up from the saturated
earth below the buckled cement floor; trickles in from the
chinks in the foundation, and dribbles out from the pipe
joints. No question, that basement is knee-deep in water.
The most obvious kind of money to look for is the PAC
contributions. A political action committee — whether
corporate, labor, or ideological — can give up to $5,000 per
candidate per election, under Federal Election Commission (FEC)
rules.
Then there’s the infamous soft money. Technically, this
is any money not regulated by the FEC. What people usually
mean by "soft money" is contributions made to a
political party rather than a specific candidate. This money
still often ends up bolstering individual candidates. There’s
no limit on soft money contributions.
 |
|
End
Corporate Domination of Elections
From
the
Labor Party's program,
A Call for Economic Justice
The current system of privately financed elections
essentially takes away our right to vote.
Today Corporate America and the rich use their vast
wealth to dominate the election process.
As a result, politicians put the vested interests of
the rich and powerful ahead of the needs and concerns of their constituents and the nation
as a whole. It is virtually impossible to pass legislation that protects and empowers
working people.
Instead we are forced to watch elected politicians
of both parties routinely rob the public treasury of billions of dollars, giving their
rich and powerful donors tax breaks, subsidies, bail-outs, and regulatory exemptions.
We demand an end to this robbery. We demand a level
playing field.
We support all efforts to enhance working
people’s political power and we oppose all efforts to dismantle majority black or
brown electoral districts. In addition, we support statehood for the District of Columbia.
We also want:
•
A financial cap on what any candidate can spend on
elections.
•
Full public financing of state and national
elections based on the principle of "one person, one vote" and "government
of, by, and for the people."
•
Full and equal public financing and media time for
candidates who have proven popular support, rather than just access to big contributors.
•
Such funds should be made available only to those
candidates who pledge not to raise and spend any private money whatsoever during the
primary and general election periods.
Enacting such a system would encourage Americans
from all walks of life, regardless of their economic means, to seek public office and save
taxpayers billions of dollars of corporate welfare heaped on the rich and powerful.
Such a system would allow all of us a fair and equal
voice in deciding who should represent us and what legislation should be passed. Such a
system — and a Labor Party — would make democracy a reality.
|
|
Under FEC rules, individuals can give no more than $1,000
to a candidate per election. Individual contributions are the
biggest source of money flowing into candidates’
record-sized campaign pots this year. And sad to say, these
contributions aren’t coming from regular folks. As of
November 1999, Bush, Gore, and Bradley were all getting about
three quarters of their individual money from people giving
the maximum $1,000. Many of these gifts come in
"bundles" from corporations. If 57 executives of
Corporation X are prevailed upon to contribute to George W.
Bush, say, then "Shrub," as he is sometimes called,
ends up with a 57K bundle from Corporation X — and will be
inclined to listen to Corporation X the next time it wants
some regulatory relief or a subsidy.
Harder to track is the money corporations can funnel into
"issue advocacy" ads and campaigns. Although the FEC
doesn’t regulate this money, it often directly supports a
particular candidate. According to the Center for Public
Integrity, 77 groups spent roughly $300 million on issue ads
in the 1997–98 election cycle.
That’s not all. How about speaking fees and honoraria
showered on the candidates by companies large and small? How
about the travel fees they cover?
There are many more devious connections between our
employers and the candidates. For instance, each candidate
employs a small army of advisors and consultants. And they are
extremely well connected (to corporations, anyway).
Thankfully, there are a number of organizations working to
shed light into the dank corners of this leaky basement. The
numbers and many of the case studies below are drawn from the
excellent information available from three Washington-based
watchdog groups: the Center for Responsive
Politics, the
Center for Public Integrity, and Common
Cause.
OCCIDENTAL AND ARCO
The biggest money in the 2000 elections, and especially for
Democrats Al Gore and Bill Bradley — has come from
white-collar bosses. Wall Street investment houses, real
estate interests, insurance companies, telecommunications
companies are at the top of the candidates’ lists. (The
biggest recorded contributions for each of the four: Bradley
took $252,000 in various forms from investment house Goldman
Sachs; Bush got $208,000 from MBNA America; Gore got $134,000
from Ernst & Young; and McCain took $50,000 from U.S.
West.)
But when it comes to blue-collar industry, oil and gas —
industries whose workers are represented by the Paper,
Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers (PACE) — are
among the biggest givers. George W. Bush has collected $1.3
million from the industry for this election. The industry’s
deep interest in Washington is demonstrated by the lobbying
dollars it spends — a total of $58 million in 1998. Exxon
alone spent $5.6 million.
Several of the presidential candidates have close personal
relationships with the oil industry. Take Occidental and Al
Gore. The company was built up by Armand Hammer, an old friend
of the Gore family. According to the Center for Public
Integrity, when Gore’s dad left the Senate, he took a
$500,000 a year job with an Occidental subsidiary. Occidental
also sold Gore’s dad a piece of land, then paid him an
annual fee for the right to mine zinc on it. The land is now
Gore Jr.’s, and so he’s the one who gets the $20,000
annual check.
The favors go both ways. In 1996, Vice President Gore
persuaded Clinton to allow oil companies to buy up a patch of
oil-rich federally owned land called the Elk Hills Reserve in
California. Occidental bought the land in the largest
privatization of federal land in U.S. history — and promptly
tripled its oil reserves. No wonder Occidental reportedly
pledged $50,000 when Gore called from the White House asking
for contributions to the Democratic Party during the 1996
reelection campaign. In 1998–99, Occidental added $27,000 to
Democratic Party coffers and $55,000 to the GOP. A dozen
Occidental execs have contributed directly to the 2000
presidential candidates. Here, Gore came out on top, garnering
$4,000 to Bush’s $2,750.
The Atlantic Richfield Company is the only oil company to
make the Center for Public Integrity’s list of top 50 donors
to the Democratic Party — Arco invested some $35 million in
the party between 1987 and 1998. (Republicans got three times
more.) Back in 1995, Arco’s top lobbyist attended a White
House coffee with Al Gore and the Democratic Party’s finance
chief, among others. Arco gave $10,000 to help pay for
renovations to the vice presidential residence. This year,
Arco’s support for Gore and the Democrats has fallen off.
This may be because they got what they were paying for back
in 1998. The massive contributions were apparently part of a
company campaign to get federal officials to open up a huge
tract of Alaska public land for oil and gas development. The
Clinton/Gore Interior Department obliged, in a hurry. Arco
landed winning bids on 99 of the 133 tracts that were opened
for bidding, gaining access to oilfields worth billions.
The energy conglomerate Enron has financed George W. Bush
to the tune of $92,000, and it loaned its jet to the governor
eight times last year. (By law, Bush had to reimburse them for
the price of a first-class ticket — a great bargain, since a
private jet is a lot more expensive than any seat on a
commercial airline). Enron appreciates Bush’s help in
pushing electric utility deregulation and pollution law
rollbacks in Texas.
MERCK, PFIZER, AND FRIENDS
The candidate with the closest relationship to the
pharmaceutical industry was Bill Bradley. The industry, which
is big in Bradley’s home state of New Jersey, came to rely
on Senator Bradley. It twice enlisted him to preserve its
infamous tax break allowing companies that shift jobs to
Puerto Rico to get a tax write-off of up to 100 percent on
revenues earned there. Bradley turned his back on PACE (then
OCAW) members, who were fighting tooth-and-nail against the
law. In return, pharmaceutical companies gave record campaign
contributions to the senator.
Bradley also went to bat for the pharmaceutical giant Merck
and Company, winning the company tariff suspensions worth $10
million annually, according to the Center for Public
Integrity. But Bradley’s payoff this election year wasn’t
too rich. Merck’s $51,000 in soft money contributions all
went to the GOP; and its $166,000 in PAC money went to
congressional candidates (72 percent of them Republicans).
However, Bradley did get about $7,000 in individual
contributions from Merck executives. In fact, he was their
favorite candidate overall.
Of pharmaceutical companies, Pfizer is one of the biggest
political spenders. Between 1997 and 1999, the company
contributed $857,000 in soft money to Republicans and another
$130,000 to Democrats. Pfizer spent $8 million to lobby
politicians in 1998. What are they after? As the maker of such
hot prescription drugs as Viagra and Zoloft, Pfizer has
successfully lobbied to get patent extensions to keep other
companies from making more affordable generic drugs. Pfizer
also lobbied for such items as a flat tax and fast-track trade
legislation.
Pfizer may have Bush’s ear. In fact, the governor’s
health policy advisor, Deborah Steelman, has done at least
$80,000 of business for each of the following: Johnson &
Johnson, PhRMA; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Pfizer; and Wyeth-Ayerst.
Bush top political advisor Haley Barbour’s firm has taken in
some $60,000 to lobby for Glaxo-Wellcome.
Gore has a few drug connections himself. His good friend
Tom Downey, a top campaign advisor, took in about $20,000 to
lobby for Merck. His longtime fundraiser Peter Knight was paid
$60,000 by Schering-Plough to lobby to extend a profitable
patent on the allergy medication Claritin. (He succeeded.)
THE
RAILROAD LOBBY
The nation’s railroad companies, now down to five big,
consolidated companies, are no slouches in the campaign
contributions department.
"I think the reason the rail industry is so active
politically is that they make so much money through defeating
regulatory reforms," says Jed Dodd of the Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees. "They give to Republicans.
They give to Democrats. And it really paid off for them in
1980, when the whole industry was deregulated."
Between 1997 and 1999, Union Pacific was the Republican
Party’s second biggest giver in the entire transportation
industry, donating $926,000 in soft money. It gave $156,000 to
the Democrats. In addition, 66 Union Pacific executives pulled
out their wallets to help this year’s presidential
candidates, giving about $37,000 to Bush and McCain. The
company spent $3.8 million on lobbying in 1998. They used the
money to pressure for utility deregulation, lifting of the
alternative minimum tax, and for national right-to-work
legislation, among many other things.
CSX comes in second, giving $596,000 to the GOP and $87,500
to the Dems. Some 51 execs spread their money around, giving a
total of $27,000 to the four candidates, with McCain, Bradley,
and Bush each getting at least $7,000. CSX has lobbied for
reduced fuel taxes and China most-favored-nation trade status.
One thing CSX wants for its money is to keep the government
from challenging aspects of its acquisition of part of the old
Conrail system.
John McCain may be the railroad industry’s best chum.
"True story," says Jed Dodd. "Back when we were
fighting the sale of Conrail, we found evidence that one of
the commissioners on the Surface Transportation Board [which
oversees the railroads] had real estate interests that gave
him a conflict of interest that should have prevented him from
ruling on the Conrail sale. If the commissioner had been
forced to resign, the Conrail merger could not have gotten
approved. We brought this information to the inspector general
of the Secretary of Transportation, who confirmed it and
presented it to McCain [chair of the Commerce Committee].
McCain put the report in his office and refused to release it,
refused even to show it to any staff people. He said the only
people he’d show it to were other senators. So we went to
every senator in the U.S. senate — and not one of them would
walk down the hall and ask McCain to look at that report. We
went to all the liberals, but they wouldn’t help us. And
that’s what the rail companies’ money was good for. There
was a straight, out-and-out ethics violation that would have
kept this guy from voting to destroy our lives — which he
eventually did."
P.S. McCain paid CSX $6,829 for the use of its corporate
jet during the 2000 campaign.
COLUMBIA/HCA
Hospitals, health insurance companies, and HMOs have so far
managed to keep meaningful national health care reform off the
agenda, and money has helped them do it. Since 1993, reports
the Center for Responsive Politics, managed care providers
have made more than $10 million in soft money, PAC, and
individual contributions to politicians from both parties
(although Republicans are favored). In 1997–98 alone,
insurance companies spent over $141 million to lobby for their
interests.
The money’s still rolling in. During the current election
cycle, hospitals and nursing homes have made nearly a million
dollars in PAC contributions to federal candidates, 59 percent
to Republicans and 41 percent to Democrats. Of this amount,
Columbia/HCA has donated $17,500. (Columbia/HCA, the nation’s
largest for-profit hospital chain, employs many members of the
California Nurses Association.) Twelve Columbia/HCA execs made
largish contributions to the 2000 presidential candidates.
Make that candidate: George Bush took the whole $8,950.
There may be a story here. Columbia/HCA was co-founded by
an old, close friend of Bush Junior, a Fort Worth, Texas,
financier named Richard Rainwater. Rainwater was instrumental
in cutting the Texas Rangers deal (see Labor
Party Press, September 1999) that
netted Bush $10–15 million a few years ago. Then, in 1995,
Bush vetoed a state Patient Protection Act that would have
forced HMOs to allow patients to see out-of-plan doctors —
bad news for Columbia/HCA. Bush eventually instructed his
insurance commissioner to implement many of the provisions of
the bill he had vetoed — except that one little part about
out-of-network doctors.
GENERAL
ELECTRIC
GE has so far poured 420,000 PAC dollars into the 2000
election, but little of it went to presidential candidates —
just $4,000 to Bush and $1,000 to McCain. Thirty-seven GE
execs also gave $250, $500, and $1000 contributions to the
candidates. Bradley collected the most from this crowd, with
$8,500. The Democrats got $17,000 in soft money contributions
from GE; the GOP got $71,000. GE’s biggest investment is in
lobbying. The company spent over seven million on it in 1998.
What exactly do companies like GE want for their lobbying
dollars?
"The devil’s in the details in this city," says
Chris Townsend of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America (UE). "They lobby Congress, but what
Congress does is just the tip of an iceberg. There’s also
the whole gigantic implementation, regulatory, and rule-making
process that goes down, and the companies meticulously follow
that. They want deregulation — or at least regulation that
favors them. For instance, GE is the biggest domestic maker of
raw plastics — and that’s a filthy business. So GE wants
to be there when there’s any congressional activity
regarding air emissions, water pollution, or how they’re
monitored. GE Capital does insurance. So for every single
piece of legislation or rule-making regarding insurance, GE is
there."
But GE, like most other big corporations, also has broader,
longer-term interests. The company, says Townsend, is
"ideological. So they lobby generically against OSHA, in
favor of right-to-work legislation, and for all the other
right-wing legislation. Every legal case on issues like that,
GE weighs in with amicus briefs. They also push for things
like NAFTA, GATT, and WTO, because that’s the grease on
their skids to open up markets and eventually move our
jobs."
–Laura McClure
This article was based on information from:
Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org);
Center for Public Integrity (www.public-i.org);
Common Cause (www.commoncause.org);
The Buying of the President by Charles Lewis and the Center for Public Integrity
Avon Books, 2000
|
