Money in politics: Buying Sen. Rockefeller

Lately it seems campaign finance reform has fallen out of favor with some progressives and public interest advocates. Encouraged by their ability to raise money online -- and discouraged by the ability of candidates to find endless loopholes and end-runs around election spending laws -- many who used to champion getting money out of politics now just want to see if they can raise as much as the other side.

The problem with this view is that powerful, wealthy interests will always have the upper hand in the political spending wars. This is especially true when it comes to corporate interests who target candidates with support in the hopes of getting their support on key legislation -- the quid pro quo.

Proving that our elected leaders pay back big donors with votes that benefit them is hard to prove, but sometimes it's not too hard to connect the dots. An excellent case in point this week comes from Sen. John Rockefeller IV (D-WV); the New York Times laid out the story nicely:

Executives at the two biggest phone companies contributed more than $42,000 in political donations to Senator John D. Rockefeller IV this year while seeking his support for legal immunity for businesses participating in National Security Agency eavesdropping.

The surge in contributions came from a Who’s Who of executives at the companies, AT&T and Verizon, starting with the chief executives and including at least 50 executives and lawyers at the two utilities, according to campaign finance reports.

The money came primarily from a fund-raiser that Verizon held for Mr. Rockefeller in March in New York and another that AT&T sponsored for him in May in San Antonio.

Mr. Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, emerged last week as the most important supporter of immunity in devising a compromise plan with Senate Republicans and the Bush administration.

Sure, "netroots" donors and other new sources of political cash have changed the equation. But in the end, they're no match for corporate money in an economy where the richest 1% of the population holds over 1/3 of the country's wealth. And most importantly, they definitely can't match the political influence of targeted special interest donations, which clearly still have the power to move mountains in Washington.

(Chart courtesy of "Threat Level"/Wired)

Labels: money and politics