Statement of U.S. PIRG Democracy Advocate Adam Lioz on the Enron Debacle
In
the wake of the collapse of Enron and the disclosure of the company's
political contributions and close ties to prominent government
officials, many reports have been focused on the prospect of
untoward-or even illegal-behavior on the part of elected officials.
Many are calling for officeholders to return Enron contributions, and
some officials have already done so.
The
implication is that otherwise objective Representatives, Senators,
senior Bush Administration officials, and even the President himself
may have provided inappropriate favors for Enron in exchange for large
campaign contributions.
Investigators
sleuthing for evidence of personal corruption in this case may or may
not find what they're looking for. But those that end their search
there are missing the forest for the trees.
Focusing
on the sale of access to or influence on decision-makers masks a much
more profound influence of wealth on our political system. It is much
more instructive to consider the effects of money on elections than on
politicians. The biggest scandal here is not personal corruption-it's
systemic corruption. It's how the very wealthy decide who gets to run
for office in the first place-and then who wins. Through large
contributions, Enron, Andersen, and their executives helped put their
supporters into office.
Recent
reporting has brought to light one example of Enron's successful
control of elections. Brody Mullins in Congress Daily has demonstrated
that Kenneth Lay recruited Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee to challenge former
Rep. Craig Washington in 1994.* Lay took issue with Washington's vote
against NAFTA and sought to replace him with someone more sympathetic
to his "free trade" principles. According to Mullins, "Enron and its
employees pumped $24,000 into Jackson Lee's campaign, helping her raise
nearly $600,000-three times as much as Washington raised for his
previous reelection." The result was an overwhelming victory for
Jackson Lee in the Democratic primary and an easy win in the general
election. This is a perfect example of how large, early hard money
contributions are decisive in most elections.
Representative
Jackson Lee might never have granted any access to any Enron lobbyist,
or returned a single phone call. However, as a result of their
political contributions, Enron was able to change the vote of the 18th
district of Texas from an anti-NAFTA position to a pro-NAFTA position.
Their money did buy the result they wanted, even though there may never
have been a quid pro quo with Representative Jackson Lee.
Likewise,
the $1.2 million in soft money to the Republican party and the $113,800
that Enron gave directly to the George W. Bush campaign played a role
in determining the outcome of the presidential election. President Bush
and Vice President Cheney may not have behaved any differently due to
Enron's contributions, but they might not be in office at all had they
not received them.
This
is why the campaign finance system taints every member of Congress and
the White House. While each individual representative may hold true to
his or her own position and not feel at all "compromised" in terms of
his or her own personal integrity, none can dispute that campaign
contributions got him or her elected in the first place. In the case of
Enron, 259 members of Congress won their seats in part because Enron
found their positions palatable to its corporate agenda.**
Reformers
who merely call for members to give back their contributions are
missing the larger point. Much of the damage has already been done. The
impact of the contribution happened long ago at the ballot box, and
this cannot be undone.
Unfortunately,
the efforts of Shays-Meehan supporters are misplaced. The legislation
takes aim at the problem of personal corruption, but by doubling
individual contributions limits, strengthens the stranglehold of
wealthy executives-like those at Enron and Andersen-on our political
system as a whole.
Exchanging
a partial soft money ban for increased hard money contribution limits
is like throwing the baby out with the bath water Congress must hold
the line on contribution limits and reject this unholy compromise...or
they will truly be missing the forest for the trees.
Those
that sense something is afoul with our campaign finance system are
correct. However, the stench isn't coming from a few bad actors trading
favors for contributions. The whole system is rotten when moneyed
interests control our elections through the use of hard and soft money
campaign contributions.
U.S.
PIRG is the national lobby office for the state Public Interest
Research Groups. PIRGs are non-profit, non-partisan public interest
advocacy organizations.
* Mullins, Brody. "NAFTA Issue Prompted Enron Support for Jackson Lee," Congress Daily. January 15, 2002.
** Center for Responsive Politics: 71 current Senators and 188 current House members have received Enron contributions.
