Quotations

from the book

Dollars and Votes

How Business Campaign Contributions Subvert Democracy

by Dan Clawson, Alan Neustadtl, and Mark Weller

Temple University Press, 1998

p5
... if voting with dollars replaces voting at the ballot box, then the votes will be very unequally distributed: the top I percent of the population by wealth will have more "votes" than the bottom 90 percent of the population.

p7
The interests of business are diametrically opposed to those of the public.

p13
... in the last election business outspent labor by an II to I margin.

p13
... business uses campaign contributions in a way few other groups do, as part of an "access" process that provides corporations a chance to shape the details of legislation, crafting loopholes that undercut the stated purpose of the law.

p13
... there is a fundamental difference between corporate and labor PAC contributions. That difference is democracy; unions have it, corporations don't. This overwhelmingly important distinction is concealed by almost all public discussion. No one talks about it, no one seems to take it seriously. There is a virtual embargo on any mention of this fact, but it merits serious consideration.

p13
.... corporate PACs-but no others-are able to coerce people to contribute.

p13
Neither stockholders nor union members can be coerced to contribute-the organization doesn't have power over them, they have power over the organization. Managers, however, can be coerced. As a result, virtually all corporate PAC money comes from employees rather than stockholders.

p13
Most aspects of the political system are beyond the direct control of corporations, but they can determine how their PACs operate and make decisions. As a result, in all but a handful of corporate PACs democratic control is not even a theoretical possibility. The PAC raises its money from employees, but employees do not and cannot vote on the leadership or direction of either the PAC or the corporation.

p23
Corporations are unlike other "special interest" groups not only because business has far more resources, but also because of its acceptance / and legitimacy. When people feel that "the system" is screwing them, they tend to blame politicians, the government, the media-but rarely business. In terms of campaign finance, while much of the public is outraged at the | way money influences elections and public policy, the issue is almost always posed in terms of politicians, what they do or don't do. This is part of a pervasive double standard that largely exempts business from criticism.

p24
Lee Atwater, George Bush's I988 campaign manager

In the I980 campaign ... big government was the enemy, not big business. If the people think the problem is that taxes are too high, and the government interferes too much, then we are doing our job. But, if they get to the point where they say that the real problem is that rich people aren't paying taxes, then the Democrats are going to be in good shape.

p25

... today business has enormous power and exercises effective hegemony, even though (perhaps because) this is largely undiscussed and unrecognized. Politically, business power today is similar to white treatment of blacks in I959-business may sincerely deny its power, but many of the groups it exercises power over recognize it, feel dominated, resent this, and fight the power as best they can. At least until very recently, economically, business power was more like gender relations in I959: Virtually no one saw this power as problematic. The revived labor movement is beginning to change this, and there are signs that a movement is beginning to contest corporate power. Nonetheless, if the issue is brought to people's attention, many still don't see a problem: "Well, so what? how else could it be? maybe we don't like it, but that's just the way things are."

p65
Candidates are reluctant to take any position critical of business because, as campaign consultant Robert Shrum explained, that "will make it more difficult to raise money. Do people in a campaign say that directly? No. What they say is: 'What's the responsible position on this issue?' That's a code word for fund raising."

p71
The Tax Code has become the de facto U.S. industrial policy ...

p75
A reader imbued with the me-first spirit of Reagan-Gingrichism ought to be asking him- or herself: "How can I get in on the action? How much would it cost me to get out of my taxes and to whom should I give the money?" Even a cautious cost-benefit analysis shows that campaign contributions to members [of Congress] are one of the best "investments" available.

p91
The country doesn't have two major parties, it has just one: the money party.

p107
... any political contribution that is not subject to federal law; in practice, big bucks given at fundraisers hosted by the president or top party leaders. The only limitation on soft money is that it cannot (legally) be used explicitly to advocate the election of a specific candidate. Creative consultants and lax regulators are making this restriction less and less significant, but, all other things being equal, politicians still prefer "hard money" given within the law.

p116
In terms of soft money, in I996 corporations outspent labor unions by $I40 million to $9.2 million, better than a 15 to 1.

p124
Corporations now may simply treat politics as a business expense, similar to advertising, research and development, or public relations. A beer company, for example, could decide to run one less ad on the Super Bowl broadcast, and instead put the $800,000 into a soft money contribution to a political party.

p147
At the end of the I960s, the forces with the power to shape the national agenda were a set of social movements. As a result, Nixon's administration enacted a host of key liberal measures on the domestic front.

From I969 through I972, virtually the entire American business community experienced a series of political setbacks without parallel in the postwar period. In the space of only four years, Congress enacted a significant tax-reform bill, four major environmental laws, an occupational safety and health act, and a series of additional consumer-protection statutes. The government also created a number of important new regulatory agencies, including the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), investing them with broad powers over a wide range of business decisions. In contrast to the I960s, many of the regulatory laws enacted during the early I970s were broader in scope and more ambitious in their objectives.

As a result, corporations felt under attack and vulnerable. It appeared that even a conservative Republican president such as Nixon would inevitably be pushed to support more and more regulation of business and interference with the market. Top business executives meeting in I973 articulated their feeling of vulnerability: "We are fighting for our lives," "We are fighting a delaying action." As one said, "If we don't take action now, we will see our own demise. We will evolve into another social democracy."

p149
Advocacy advertising has no explicit connection with a corporation's products but, rather, it promotes a message, often explicitly political, sometimes simply "image." In I979 David Vogel estimated corporations were spending one-third of their advertising budgets on such campaigns. The business press began the admittedly difficult task of redefining reality: "It will be a hard pill for many Americans to swallow - the idea of doing with less so that big business can have more.... Nothing that this nation, or any other nation, has done in modern economic history compares in difficulty with the selling job that must now be done to make people accept the new reality."


p156
For a brief period around I980, a large proportion of corporations embraced a risk-taking, ideologically conservative, political strategy. Thereafter, however, most corporations returned to a pragmatic strategy of supporting incumbents to gain access: Business and the Democratic party moved toward each other. The Democratic party became more accommodating to business, and corporations became more willing to give to moderate Democratic incumbents.

p161
Extraelectoral mobilization-in the I960s, social movements and from the I970s to the I990s, corporate political action-is the factor that best explains major shifts in policy; its impact is more important than election outcomes.

p167

... the 1980-81 period dramatically transformed the direction of U S policy and .. the impetus for this transformation was aggressive action (of all kinds) carried out by a unified business community. Campaign finance was one part of that, and it provides the best quantitative indicator of a change that actually involved a range of other behaviors. If this is so, we need to ask: How is this business unity and power developed? What underlying mechanisms make it possible for businesses to unify and act effectively?

p169
Business power derives in part from [the] ability to achieve political unity on most issues. Even more important, however, is business's control of the economy, a control that is neglected in many analyses of power... Corporations control a host of decisions unless and until the government specifically intervenes. Control of the economy also gives business vast resources for influencing society in a host of "non-political" ways.

p187
The top 10 percent of the nation's families control more than two-thirds of the national wealth; the top 1 percent control 42 percent. The top 1 percent thus controls substantially more wealth than the bottom 90 percent of the population.

p191
Weak or ineffective government - or, at least, weak and ineffective enforcement of certain regulations - serves corporate interests almost as effectively as pro-business regulations.

p194
Total spending on advertising (per year) is well over fifty times what we spend on elections (every other year), and is well over half of total spending on public elementary and secondary education.

p199
Campaign finance violations in the I996 election were the most serious since Watergate. "What we saw in this election cycle was nothing less than the breakdown of the campaign finance system," said political scientist Anthony Corrado. "The system we created in the I970s essentially collapsed.... It's the Wild West out there. It's anything goes." The system collapsed in a dozen different ways, with every rule being bent past the breaking point and politicians assuming they didn't need to worry about enforcement, from soft money to issue advertising to reporting requirements.

p208
For most members of the American public-and for us [the authors] - the problem is an entire system that is institutionally corrupt, that coerces politicians to put dollars over voters, that buys off democracy. The solution, therefore, must be a complete overhaul and the introduction of a fundamentally new system.

p217
... the reality is that "money talks," and those who have the gold make the rules. This is the underlying problem that must be confronted by any attempt at campaign finance reform.

p218
One of the corporate executives we interviewed explained why he'd be opposed to abolishing private money in campaigns: "I think the members would be less accessible because I think they might start running it strictly for the votes." That, of course, is precisely the point. For us, it is the hope; for him, it was the fear.

p219
The regulatory model of campaign finance is doomed to failure. As long as our society continues to have vast inequalities of wealth, income, and power, the people with the most money will be able to find ways around restrictive rules.

p221
One of the attacks on Clean Money Campaign Reform is likely to be that taxpayers will be forced to shell out for weak and silly candidates. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, for the past several years the Republican leader in the battle against campaign finance reform, argued against public funding-any public funding-on these grounds:

If we extend [public financing to congressional] races, every crackpot who got up in the morning and looked in the mirror and said, "gee, I think I see a congressman" is going to be able to reach into the federal cookie jar and get some of those tax dollars.

In practice, of course, as things stand today, crackpots can run for Congress-or the presidency-as long as they are rich crackpots...

p223
In 1955 corporations paid 27.3 percent of all federal taxes, but in I995 they paid only 11.6 percent. The reduced contributions by corporations meant that individuals paid more. Total federal tax revenue in I995 was $I,355 billion. If corporations had paid the same share of taxes in I995 as in I955, they would have paid an additional $213 billion, enough in that one year to provide public financing for both House and Senate elections for well over a century.

p224
The voluntary checkoff system is extraordinary, and in our opinion [the authors], it is intended to subvert public financing. Nothing else the government funds (depends on voluntary checkoffs. If building the B-2 relied exclusively on taxpayers voluntarily designating money, how many bombers would we build? We believe that public financing of elections should be paid for in the same way everything else is-out of general revenues. Let voluntary taxpayer checkoffs be used for the savings-and-loan bailout.

p228
Entrenched interests-including most politicians in office, most of the media, and virtually every business-have a stake in seeing to it that the people with money continue to have more access, and more leverage, than average voters. The moneyed interests will not easily give up their privileges.

p229
Two options are possible: full public financing of elections or continued domination by moneyed interests. At present, the public is unhappy with both of these. Another option appears attractive, but is, in fact, illusory: Continue private financing but with effective regulation." It remains to be seen whether the advocates of public financing can persuade voters that, despite their reservations about public financing, it is the only realistic alternative to our current system. If those with wealth and power can get their act together, they will support a cosmetic pseudo-reform that will, they hope, undercut demands for true reform.

p231
Public funding of congressional campaigns would reduce the power of business. Not eliminate it: While campaign finance is one important tool business uses to influence politics, it is not the only one. If full public funding were instituted and all loopholes were plugged, thus establishing a level playing field for campaign finance, business would still have a privileged position.

Dollars and Votes

Index of Website

Home Page