There is an old political adage: “Money is the mother’s milk of politics” It means that political power flows from large warchests to candidates and to lobbying efforts that influence government decisions.
But where does the money come from? Powerful organized interest groups and the wealthy.
We saw it this year when lawmakers were wrestling with New York’s $268 billion-plus state budget. The successful campaign to weaken the state’s heretofore landmark Climate Law was to a large extent the result of a multi-million-dollar advocacy campaign launched by the oil and gas industry and large investor-owned utilities.
Another example was the successful effort to make it harder for victims of car crashes to get compensated. In that case, it was widely reported that ride sharing giant Uber was spending millions of dollars on an advocacy campaign to limit compensation for injured car passengers and drivers. Why? Because they are on the hook when their drivers are involved in an accident.
All in all, according to the most recent data, lobbying campaigns spent nearly $400 million to influence government decisions.
On the other side of the influence peddling coin is the campaign financing system. New York’s weak campaign contributions limits, poor disclosure rules, and huge contributions to the political parties have resulted in a system that relies on a small number of very large donors – entities that usually have business before the government.
New York has long been on notice of the failure of its state’s campaign finance law. Over thirty-five years ago, the final reports of the Commission on Government Integrity were issued. The Commission commented “In many instances these campaigns are disproportionately financed by groups, corporations or individuals whose businesses are directly regulated by government officials…[T]hese practices, among others, erode the public’s confidence in elected officials by giving at least the impressions that campaign contributors make contributions to candidates in order to obtain favorable treatment.”
Starting about ten years ago, New York took significant steps toward improving the system. It shrunk a loophole that allowed some businesses to give larger contributions than others. It established a voluntary campaign financing system that allowed a public “match” for small contributions, in order to help limit the influence of big donors. And it lowered campaign contribution limits for candidates running for office (although they are still high). But big donations to the political parties were left intact.
Campaign contributions to the political committees (for example the State Democratic and Republican Committees) are “capped” at $138,600, a ludicrously high level. Political committees are then allowed to transfer contributions of any amount to the candidates of their choice, effectively circumventing candidates’ contribution limits.
For those who want to give more, donations of any size are allowed to these political committees – as long as they are not used to advance a candidate.
Who makes contributions of these amounts? Those with access to big money, the same entities and individuals who are capable of spending big efforts on lobbying.
The result? Not enough has changed in Albany; it’s still a big money town. As the 1980s Commission noted, “torrents of money, unrestrained by real limits, pour from corporations, PACs and unions…The Commission found that this creates an unhealthy climate of indebtedness, with some candidates owing their success to party leaders who are in turn dangerously dependent on large contributions from special interests and those doing business with the government.”
What was true then, is still true today. As candidates run for state office, ask them how they intend to address this “unhealthy climate of indebtedness.”