Tag: special interests

Big PACs Throw Money At Supercommittee Members

Want to get a huge influx of cash? Looks like all you have to do is be part of the supercommittee.

From the time the six Republicans and six Democrats were appointed to the special committee to reduce the deficit, suspicions about lobbyists’ influence on these politicians arose. AP reported in August that the 12 members had received more than $3 million in the past five years from special interests. Given those contributions, the supercommittee members will no doubt consider their donors’ requests instead of acting in the best interests of the general public when making their proposal.

Now, as the supercommittee continues its deliberations, new reports reveal that special interests have stepped up their efforts to influence the politicians and ensure that their sectors are not adversely affected. The watchdog Sunlight Foundation writes:

PACs for 19 of the biggest political donors in the country, as determined by Center for Responsive Politics, have reported contributing more than $83,000 to 10 of the 12 members of the super committee or their leadership PACs, Federal Eelection Commission filings show. It’s the first glimpse available of fundraising by super committee members as they wrestle with their mandate to recommend at least $1.2 trillion in cuts to the debt, increased revenues, or a combination of both.

… The totals represent just a fraction of what super committee members and their leadership PACs have raised since being named to the committee.

Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., raised $26,500 from PACs of the big donors, with most going to his leadership PAC, Continuing a Majority PAC. Pfizer, Goldman Sachs and Comcast all sent $5,000 checks to the fundraising committees of the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee within days of his appointment to the debt reduction panel.

Rep. Xavier Becerra, R-Calif., who was criticized when a fundraising invitation sent out on his behalf advertised his new position on the super committee, raised $15,000 from the big PACs, including $2,500 checks from the American Health Care Association and the American Hospital Association sent within days of his appointment.

Pfizer’s PAC reported the highest amount of contributions — $10,000 — to super committee members; the pharmaceutical manufacturer also donated $5,000 to Sen Max Baucus, D-Mont.

Defense contractor Lockheed Martin contributed to the most super committee members–Camp ($2,500), Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C. ($1,000), Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio ($2,000) and the leadership PAC of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Campaign for our Country ($2,500).

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., were the only members of the committee who did not receive donations.

Considering these special interests, it won’t be surprising if military contractors, banks, and pharmaceutical companies avoid the harshest measures when the supercommittee unveils its proposal.

Who’s Funding Both Parties?

When it comes to campaign finance, it’s difficult to find the “good guys.” The Republicans are relying heavily on donations from political action committees, but the Democrats are simultaneously criticizing donations from special interests while still accepting their money.

These special interests can range from seemingly innocuous policy groups to huge corporations. In any case, their large donations complicate the ability of politicians, once elected, to act independently and in the best interests of their constituents. The Democrats have publicly acknowledged this potential, but the vast majority of them are still accepting donations from such groups despite these concerns.

Based on Democrats’ words, one would assume they are running noble campaigns that completely eschew special interest donations, unlike the Republicans. Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama’s reelection campaign, told Politico:

“With special interests now able to raise unlimited funds in their effort to defeat the president — with some estimates saying they’ll raise $500 million — there’s no doubt that we’re building a robust fundraising operation in order to establish the largest grassroots infrastructure possible.”

But according to an Associated Press analysis of campaign fundraising, the Democrats aren’t exactly shying away from special interest dollars either. The study found that Democratic candidates seeking to regain control of the House have already received $15 million from political action committees this year — with more than $1 million going toward the re-election committees of Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Democratic leaders gloss over all that when they pressure the GOP presidential candidates to disclose their top donors, and even go so far as to trumpet the fact that Obama’s campaign and the DNC don’t take money from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees.

“The refusal to accept donations from federal lobbyists and PACs is critical to limiting the influence of special interests in the political process,” Wasserman Schultz said in a recent conference call with reporters. “Unfortunately, every single Republican candidate for president today happily accepts donations from lobbyists and PACs.”

But so do Democratic congressional candidates. If Wasserman Schultz is admitting that donations from these groups affect the political process, then why is she still accepting these donations?

Some might argue that the Democrats are only accepting money from special interests because they know the Republicans are, and they have to set aside their values if they want to stand a chance in the elections. Still, it seems hypocritical for leading Democrats to criticize the role of special interests and political action committees while benefiting from that system at the same time.

In this case, the rhetoric doesn’t match the numbers.