Money in politics is not new. After John F. Kennedy won his first congressional election, Joseph Kennedy bragged that he could have elected a laborer off the street for the amount of money he had spent on his son's campaign. These days, however, an open seat Congressional election costs half a million and a competitive challenge to an incumbent costs twice that amount. Campaigns for Senate and governor in large states cost between ten and fifteen million.
With such huge sums contributing a large share to a campaign's success, re-election driven politicians in Washington's Beltway are handshaking with business and walking away with fistfuls of dollars. A recent study of Political Action Committees conducted by the Center For Responsive Politics shows that 79 percent of PAC contributions come from the business sector. This compares to only 14 percent for labor and less than five percent for ideological PACs, a category that includes environmental and public interest groups. The dominance of business donations extends beyond PACs to individual contributions. Though limited to $1000 per person for an election cycle, corporations can magnify their influence over a candidate by pooling individual contributions from company executives and friends.
Money dumping by business translates to a considerable return on investment. Last year, the oil industry gave over $23 million to individual candidates and national party soft money accounts. In return, the industry received $8.8 billion in government subsidy. Such a generous return pales in comparison to the nuclear energy industry which gave $80,000 and received $11 billion in government subsidy.
The return on business money is more graphic at the single issue level. The oil and gas industries, which favor opening Alaska's Arctic Refuge to drilling, have given $17 million to Senators and Congressional Representatives over the last six years. The sum is twelve times the amount donated by anti-drilling forces. In a study conducted by the USPIRG, those members of Congress who had voted in favor of refuge drilling had received an average of $78,000 in oil and gas donations or four times the amount received by those voting against drilling. Under similar attack was the Clean Water Act, a long standing target for "reform" by industry and business. PACs opposed to several provisions of the act contributed $57 million between 1989 and 1992 to various members of Congress. According to the USPIRG study, members who voted for rolling back provisions of the Clean Water Act had received twice the amount of PAC donations as those voting in opposition to changes in the bill.
Dollar influence does not end with elected officials but includes, believe it or not, most of the core advocacy groups within the environmental lobby. According to the Environmental Action Foundation, the National Audubon Society receives monies from such unlikely and paradoxical sources as Dow Chemical, Shell Oil, and the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. The Sierra Club receives donations from Arco Chemical, Exxon and CIBA. Tobacco kingpin Phillip Morris is a contributor to all eleven national environmental organizations, prompting some speculation as to why an anti-tobacco campaign has never gained popular momentum within the environmental interest milieu.
The competitive advantages that flow from the power of the dollar in our political system leaves the US looking more like a dollarocracy than a democracy. One CRP report shows that in the last election cycle some four percent of the American population made campaign donations. Of those contributing, 800,000 made a contribution of $200 or more. This means that only one third of one percent of American citizens made a significant contribution to a Congressional campaign. Since evidence shows that dollars have considerable influence on political decision-making, it appears obvious that business enjoys a privileged position in American government, and that representative democracy has given way to an oligopolistic political market. Joseph Kennedy would be proud.
