Commentary –

Corporate Money – Still Big In Elections

By Patricia Lynn

Any sign that corporate influence has been reduced in the first presidential election since the banning of soft money went into effect looks dubious. Despite the Supreme Court ruling in support of the Campaign Reform Act, corporate money and the influence it buys is finding its way into the 2004 election. One only need look at sponsorship of the major political party conventions in Boston and New York.

Unfortunately, when the Federal Election Commission decided to allow convention “host committees” to raise and spend unlimited soft money from corporations to pay for the national party nominating conventions in 2004, it left a gaping hole in repairs to the democratic elections process. In the not-too-distant past, party conventions were largely funded by federal grants. Private sources are expected to give $110 million for the 2004 conventions—about 13 times the amount of private contributions to the 1992 conventions, and donations to national party committees already exceed levels in 2000 despite the soft money ban.

The Republicans plan to raise $64 million from private contributions for their convention, compared to the Democrat’s $39.5 million. A handful of corporations, including Coca-Cola, Altria Group (a.k.a. Philip Morris), and Pfizer, are attempting to hedge their bets by giving to both parties. Coca-Cola and Pfizer are Silver donors to the Boston Host Committee, giving between $250,000 and $500,000. Philip Morris/Altria is a Bronze donor, giving between $100,000 and $250,000. The Democratic host committee rejected tobacco money for its 2000 convention. These same corporations are listed as sponsors of the Republican Convention in New York City.

We have become far too apathetic in the face of these numbers and the presence of corporations in politics—unless we follow the money—to understand how it affects us directly. Corporations obviously stand to gain by donating to political parties and conventions. Why else would they do it? According to a Supreme Court ruling, soft money donations from corporations directly to both national parties led to “no other conclusion but that these donors were seeking influence, or avoiding retaliation.”

President George W. Bush is the top recipient of tobacco money in the current election cycle, but Philip Morris/Altria isn’t taking any chances given that the United States signed the Convention on Tobacco Control in 2003, and must decide whether to ratify the treaty. The tobacco giant is splitting its donations more evenly than in 2000 when it overwhelmingly supported the Republicans. They have given 60 percent to Republicans and 40 percent to Democrats so far in the 2004 elections. Call it an insurance policy. Tobacco-related illnesses kill nearly five million people around the world every year.

Pfizer also has a great deal at stake in this year’s elections as the importation of prescription drugs is debated in Congress. The corporation has donated over half a million dollars so far in this election cycle, 65 percent to Republicans. The cost of drugs is an issue that affects nearly everyone, in particular the more than 40 million uninsured.

Corporate scandals of the past several years like Enron also do not appear to have curbed the willingness of political candidates or parties to accept corporate contributions. Each party points at the other while continuing to permit undue corporate access and influence at the expense of public trust. There is a “silver lining” in that tobacco industry and pharmaceutical industry donations are down from 2000, perhaps indicating the ban on soft money may have had some impact. The key is to continue to close loopholes and expose the quid pro quo between corporations and their political donations—whether it is access to political leaders or changes to legislation that affects them.

(Patricia Lynn is campaign director for Infact, a nonpartisan membership organization that challenges irresponsible and dangerous corporate actions around the world. Infact does not endorse, support, oppose, or otherwise advocate the election or defeat of any political candidate or party. )