link WASHINGTON - You don't need a scorecard to figure out how lawmakers vote on major issues. You just need to tabulate their campaign donations. The Associated Press looked at six measures in the House — medical malpractice, class action lawsuits, overhauling bankruptcy laws, the energy bill, gun manufacturer lawsuits and overtime pay — and compared lawmakers' votes with the financial backing they received from interest groups supporting or opposing the legislation. The House passed five of the six bills and defeated an amendment that would have stopped the Bush administration from rewriting the rules for overtime pay. In the vast majority of cases, the biggest recipients of interest group money voted the way their donors wanted, according to the AP's computer-assisted analysis of campaign finance data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Groups that outspent opponents got the bills they wanted in five of the six cases examined by the AP. For example, House members voting to ban lawsuits against gun manufacturers and distributors averaged more than $173 from supporters of gun owners' rights for every $1 those groups gave to bill opponents. Overall, gun rights groups gave $1.2 million to House members during the 2002 elections while supporters of gun control gave $27,250. "We have a very loyal and very generous membership that recognizes the significance of electing officials who respect their Second Amendment freedoms," said Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. Candice Nelson, an associate professor of political science at American University and director of the school's Campaign Management Institute, said interest groups see campaign donations as investments. "You want to make sure to get like-minded people elected," she said. Lawmakers reject a connection between votes and money. "There was never a discussion of, `If you do this, I'll do that,'" said Rep. John Linder (news, bio, voting record), R-Ga., who has raised millions of dollars for House Republicans. "People will write checks because they think we're working hard to do our best." The AP analysis also found: _Supporters of doctor-backed legislation limiting noneconomic damages for patients injured by medical malpractice averaged $1.41 in campaign contributions from physicians and other health professionals for every $1 given to lawmakers against the measure. Opponents of the bill received $1.85 from lawyers, who objected to curbs on awards, for every $1 given to those who voted yes. Lawyers gave $21.3 million to House members during the 2002 campaign while health professionals gave $16.7 million. _House members who sided with trial lawyers and voted against shifting class action lawsuits from state courts to more restrictive federal courts averaged of $1.63 from attorneys for every $1 given to legislation supporters. Businesses contributed $276.7 million to House members, compared with $21.3 million for lawyers. _Backers of legislation making it harder for consumers to erase their debts in bankruptcy court received, on average, $2.13 from the credit card and finance industries for every $1 given to bill opponents. Those industries gave $2 million; consumer groups gave $1,298. _Lawmakers voting for an energy bill that would open to drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska averaged $4.64 from the oil and gas industry for every $1 given to those who voted no. Opponents averaged $12.99 from environmental groups for every $1 contributed to bill supporters. The oil industry gave $5.8 million; environmentalists, $751,079. _House members who voted to overturn Bush administration efforts to rewrite rules governing overtime, which unions said would take the premium pay away from as many as 8 million workers, received $10.40 from labor for every $1 given to lawmakers who opposed the motion. Unions gave $33.7 million in 2002 to business' $276.7 million. "People make these political contributions for a reason," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "They're making them to get some benefit, and the benefit is often the legislation." Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a top Democratic fund-raiser, disputed the idea that donors try to buy support. "Never did I ever feel like I had to support or oppose any particular legislation based upon a contribution," Kennedy said. Some lawmakers differed with the interest groups' positions despite receiving sizable campaign contributions. For instance, Rep. Sherrod Brown (news, bio, voting record), D-Ohio, voted against the malpractice bill even after getting $224,352 from health care professionals, and Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., backed the class action legislation despite receiving $145,075 from lawyers. Still, only two of the 140 House members who opposed the gun liability bill — Reps. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., and Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. — received any pro-gun contributions. With doctors retiring early or dropping specialties because of rising malpractice insurance premiums, the American Medical Association made sure candidates were aware of that issue. The association's political action committee gave $2.5 million to federal candidates for the 2002 elections. Only four PACs gave more, including that of the trial lawyers. "What the PAC tries to do is make sure that candidates are in office who will protect patients' interests and keep physicians in the practice of medicine," said AMA President Donald Palmisano, a New Orleans surgeon. "That's why we made medical liability reform our No. 1 priority." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I would be naive to think that money didn't sway the votes but I didn't know there was this direct of a corelation. You could also argue that lobbyist only give money to people who would vote their way but if lobbyist didn't think they were getting good return on their money, why would they spend millions of dollars. This just proves that its not about right versus wrong or Democrats versus Republicans. Its about have and have nots and the poor will continue to get screwed.
Campaign Donations Sway Lawmakers' Vote This is a bit misleading. There's certainly a correlation, but we don't really know if : Campaign Donations Sway Lawmakers' Vote or Lawmaker's votes & interests sway who they get campaign donations from
I was talking to someone who works in national and state politics (not Texas) recently and he told me that quite often members of congress sponsor bills because they are asked, but if you ask them what the bill is for, the couldn't fully explain it to you. He said that a lobbyist he knows routinely asks members of congress to sponsor bills that would be good for the people who pay him and that they do often without asking why or what good it will do. This is a very common occurrance. In fact, he believes that it is more common for legislation to begin this way than for it to start from the idea of a lawmaker or constituent. If you actually get around politics, particularly on the state and national level, you really start to see this exchange of money for politics. It is ugly.
Yes, it truly is. And rampant in both parties, although raised to a high pitch by the Republican Party in Texas, imo.
Not a great article. Better evidence would be a change in vote after a donation. It's perfectly natural for corporations/groups to want elected officials that support their view point. So, of course, they give such people money. If ROXRAN ran for the senate, no doubt he'd get plenty of money from the NRA and gun manufactorers. But his votes against gun control wouldn't indicate selling-out, but rather his personal preference. That said, the amount of money in politics is frightening. If nothing else, there's disproportional representation for those who have the most money. And I'm sure some "vote-buying" does take place.
I think it is important to realize just how many initiatives are passed in a session. In Texas this last session, over 1200 bills were passed and that was considered a pretty low number. Most members of congress unquestionably have pet issues they press forward, however, that usually only represents a handful of bills each session. Yet, most of them sponsor dozens of bills each year. If you spend any time around congressional members, you'll see that the influence wielded by lobbyists who support their campaigns is dramatic.
All the more reason for publicly funded campaigns. It would take a constitutional amendment, but it would take a lot of the money out of politics.
There are other ways to avoid this problem. 1. Put a cap on all campaign contributions and total spending. By placing an absolute (and reasonable) cap for campaigns, you can level the playing field, especially if the amount were limited to a relatively low number. 2. Limit lobbyist access to members of congress and eliminate it from appointed officials. By placing tight restrictions on what lobbyists can and can't do, you restrict their access. Also, insulating appointed boards like agriculture, EPA and FCC, you eliminate the chance they become influenced. 3. Require both sides get time. Another way to deal with lobbyists is to require that politicians must give equal time to people on both sides of the issues. For example, if they spend 10 hours talking to the petrochemical industry, they have to spend 10 hours talking to the environmental lobby. 4. Require meetings with the general public for all levels of government. I think requiring public forums for members of congress and even for the president would give the voice back to the general public. The problem now is that members of government don't really have to listen, especially if they are entrenched in office or about to be term limited. It often leaves them completely out of touch with normal people. 5. Public policy issues - including those decided by appointed boards - should be much more open to the general public. The recent FCC rulings to scale back limitations on media conglomerates is a perfect example. There was nearly no public inquiry. There should be a requirement on how much public discussion is required and what forum that should take. For example, one poorly advertised public forum held just outside of Washington DC is not enough when deciding many critical issues that will effect the entire country. With all the advancements in technology, travel and cost should not be an issue. I think implementation of just those things would dramatically change how governement does business. Also, if you scale back the money politicians can make from their contributors, you will encourage people from a wider range of backgrounds to participate and open up more access to all levels of government.
In addition to Jeff's proposed rules, I would propose that they cannot hold a job or make money in the industry that they regulate for say 10 years. If it is known that by playing ball with an industry you will be paid as soon as you leave office, it is another way for interest groups to bribe regulators and elected officials. Coming up with these rules is easy. Those that are being paid or continually relected by the money in the current system do not want to change things. Violating the rules has to be made a felony to give it some teeth.
Great idea. The rumor is that W will spend $200 million in the next election cycle, and that is way, WAY too much. Agreed. If we could somehow make it so that the access to politicians was equally open to everyone (not just contributors), many of the money problems would be minimized. IMO, lobbyists should not even be able to get appointments with appointed officials. On the same tack, if, in ad spots, the politician mentions a competitor, we could require that the competitor gets to see the ad and compose a rebuttal to be shown after the attack ad. This might actually keep the politicians honest in their ads and we might start to minimize attack ads. Personally, if I were a politician, I would operate a web site with a BBS so that people could post messages and communicate with me. This would be in addition to town hall meetings and other constituent friendly meetings. The example you cited should have had public hearings across the US in most major cities. In addition, they could have asked for comments via BBS or some such. Well said. Unfortunately, it is going to be difficult to implement these ideas as they would seriously threaten the power and money brokers in Washington.
Jeff, those are all great ideas, and several of them have been suggested here in Texas by different members of the Legislature and by certain state commissions delving into this subject from time to time. They were almost always shot down without any serious discussion. This has been true from both sides of the political fence. But since Bush was elected governor, and far more so with Perry in office, the lobbists have had a field day. They feel like they've died and gone to heaven, unless they represent the interests of health and human services, the disabled and the elderly, the environment and similar issues. Then you're out of luck.
