July 21, 2003 5:56 AM

You get what you pay for

Survey: House votes linked to donations

No one with an ounce of common sense will be shocked by this story, but if this doesn't make you want something resembling meaningful campaign finance reform, I don't know what will.

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, 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 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.

No, you couldn't reasonably call members of Congress "public servants". When you consider the amount of money it takes to run for office, it only makes sense that politicians will chase the biggest money they can find. Of course, there really isn't any such thing as a free lunch, is there? The truly sad thing about this is that we elect our Senators and Congressman to protect our interests. What we get in reality is somewhat less than that.

Here are a few interesting (read: disturbing) examples of how our elected representatives are "doing the people's work":

  • 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 $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.
  • Lawmakers voting for a 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.
  • 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.

Of the people, by the people, for the people. That sure is some nice-sounding rhetoric, no? Too bad it means absolutely nothing anymore.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on July 21, 2003 5:56 AM.

Managing the workload? Or weeding out dissenting voices? was the previous entry in this blog.

Much ado about nothing? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 5.12