Democrats' interests are special too

Investor's Business Daily
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 24 January 2010

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have a constitutional right to free speech. But Democratic leaders refuse to accept the decision, and their predictable reaction is to undermine it. Rather than praising Thursday's 5-4 decision to reverse the 1990 court ruling that banned corporations and unions from contributing directly to political campaigns as an advancement of liberty, President Obama condemned it. "The Supreme Court," he said, "has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans . ..

"That's why I am instructing my administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."

The president is betting the public will accept his rhetoric without checking his facts, and the facts in this case show that lawyers and law firms, not "Big Oil" or "Wall Street," are the biggest political contributors. According to opensecrets.org., 83 per cent of their donations are going to Democrats in the current election cycle, This is not unusual. In the 2008 cycle, Democrats took in 78 per cent of lawyer and law-firm political dollars. In 2006, the ratio was 62 per cent Democrats to 36 per cent Republicans. Two years earlier, it was 80 per cent to 20 per cent in favor of the Democrats.

Maybe the president just doesn't consider lawyers and law firms to be special interests. OK, so how about the securities and investment industry, a sector Democrats have demonized and unfavorably link to Republicans? Is this group a special interest? The president can define special interests any way he wants. But he can't redefine the fact that 73 per cent of the political donations from the securities and investment industry — the "Wall Street" he apparently holds in such low regard — are going to Democrats in the 2010 cycle. In 2008, 64 per cent went to Democrats, in 2004 it was 61 per cent and in 2002 56 per cent. In the 2006 cycle, the parties evenly split donations from the sector, each taking in 47 per cent.

As telling as that is, our fact-checking exercise revealed another valuable nugget. Of the 50 industries and sectors categorized as contributors by opensecrets.org, Democrats are the top recipients during this cycle in all but two. Oil and gas, one of those named a "powerful interest," is ranked as the 14th largest political contributor, and the auto industry, which ranks 46th. In short, the stampede of special interest money began long before the court's ruling, and Democrats are the biggest beneficiaries.

The president knows this, and so does Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Yet Schumer calls the court's ruling "poisonous" and, according to The Hill newspaper, promises to hold hearings "to explore ways to limit corporate spending on elections." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, also knows that his party is swimming in special-interest money. But he vows hearings as well.

If Democrats are acting as if they fear what the ruling will mean, it's because they probably do. They feel their funding advantage, which already includes so much indirect union money that the court's overturning of the ban on direct union contributions won't help them, is now at risk. But their complaint about a stampede of special interest dollars is hard to take seriously, and not only because of how much special interest money they're already getting. While supporters of campaign finance laws say money is the corrupting element, they ignore the second part of the equation and the more corrosive factor: lawmakers' votes.

Their implication is that big money buys votes in Congress, and they might be right. But trying to cut the flow of political money won't stop the practice; it will only drive it underground. The way to stop the corruption is to prosecute lawmakers who sell their vote. Though tainted by undue persecution, political dollars are a necessary part of our system. They illuminate the issues for everyday Americans and give challengers a chance drive out entrenched incumbents. No one, not even a group of individuals, should be barred from taking part in this exercise of freedom.