Blue Planet: Anti-environmental soft money

In the 1999-2000 election campaign cycle, of the $80 million in contributions to political parties from corporate treasuries and wealthy individuals in the oil and gas, energy, agribusiness, construction and transportation industries, Republicans got about 75 percent and Democrats about 25 percent.

Overall in the campaign, so-called soft money contributions from all industries, unions and individuals, totaled about $500 million, split about evenly between Democrats and Republicans. If the recently passed Shays-Meehan legislation in the House of Representatives gets support in the Senate and makes it into law, soft money contributions to national parties would be illegal.

It has been illegal for corporations to spend money on federal elections since 1907 and for unions since 1947. In 1978, however, the Federal Election Commission made an administrative ruling that created the current system, under which soft money that is supposed to go for "party-building" activities can end up supporting candidates.

There is a consensus in the environmental community that soft money gifts have distorted the democratic process -- that money bought access, access bought influence and influence stalled and derailed legislation critical to environmental protection.

Many people are worried that although the reform legislation will significantly reduce the influence of big money, loopholes will be found. Political action committees, soft money to state parties, money for "issue ads," and large aggregate donations from wealthy individuals are the usual suspects. There is a sense more reform is needed.

There also is concern the Federal Election Commission will not adequately enforce any new laws. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., co-author of Shays-Meehan, and Larry Noble, former FEC general counsel, both expressed this view.

There is little doubt in the environmental community and among reform-minded organizations about the effect of the current system.

Betsy Loyless, political director of Washington-based League of Conservation Voters, said $27 billion in subsidies for oil and gas, coal and nuclear businesses in the energy bill that passed the House were examples of what a system with soft money has produced. Loyless also cited recent changes in mining regulations.

Celia Wexler, senior policy analyst with Washington-based Common Cause, told UPI: "Whether the issue is protecting our kids from dangerous pesticides or global warming or drilling in environmentally sensitive regions, soft money from the oil and gas and chemical industries has bought access and influence at the highest levels of government."

She added, "If we get rid of soft money it's not that polluters won't have any influence in government but that influence will be greatly mitigated."

Administrative rule changes and legislation favoring timber, oil and gas and the cattle grazing interests, where soft money had influenced polices and laws, were cited by Steve Holmer, campaign coordinator for Washington-based American Lands.

"It's difficult to prove, but there seems to be a correlation between coal money, energy company money and the delay in cleaning up these power plants, which are awful for the air and awful for anyone who breathes air," said Alan Metrick, director of communications for Natural Resources Defense Council in New York.

NRDC is suing the Bush administration to force it to release records that may show corporate influence on administration energy policy-making.

Many people believe the changes will not result in genuine reform. Large numbers of executives from industries, such as oil and gas, mining, car manufacturing, forestry and agribusiness, will give large and influential amounts, said Anna Aurilio, legislative director for U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The individual giving limits need to be reduced, she said.

Marty Meehan, D-Mass., co-author of Shays-Meehan, strongly believes the legislation will be effective.

"If this bill did nothing, as opponents claim, it would have passed a long time ago. If this bill did nothing the (House) speaker would not have called the bill 'Armageddon.' If this bill did nothing, special interests from across the political spectrum -- who have been roaming the halls of the Capitol -- why would they be fighting to prevent this bill from becoming law?" Meehan said.

"If hard money giving were that effective in influencing policy, corporations wouldn't have been giving six-figure soft money contributions in the first place," he added.

Shays, however, told UPI loopholes to the law will "absolutely" be found. "They'll find ways to get around some of the spirit of the law, but they would no matter what law we passed," he said.

Shays said he thought many corporations would find they do not have to pay money to have their issue heard. "I'd like to think that in a way, everyone gains because they don't have to pay protection money to Congress," he said.

Shays pointed a finger at the FEC, which is responsible for writing and interpreting specific campaign finance regulations as well as monitoring all contributions to and expenditures by federal candidates.

"The FEC created soft money. We're having to undo what the FEC did. The FEC could wreck this bill if they want. The bill needs to be enforced by the FEC," Shays said.

Shays is one of many who object to FEC commissioners injecting themselves into the debate.

"That's one of the outrageous things about some of the FEC members being involved," Shays said. "They're going around trying to undermine it. ... They're the people who've got to make the bill work and they're going around trying to campaign against it because they basically don't support campaign finance law. It's bizarre."

The question arises as to whether or not the fox is guarding the hen house. One major loophole is the FEC itself, a view strongly expressed by the FEC's former chief counsel for 13 years, Larry Nobel.

"There's a lot of interpretation left open in this law and it's going to rely on the Federal Election Commission enforcing it. Their track record has not been very good," Noble said.

In the 1996 presidential elections, the FEC allowed the national parties to run ads that claimed to be issue ads but were really candidate ads and the practice was rampant in the 2000 presidential race, added Noble, now executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.

Certain types of coordination between outside groups and candidates would be illegal under the proposed new law, but as Noble notes, "The legislation leaves it up to the FEC to come up with a definition of 'coordination.' The FEC has already gutted the present definition of coordination."

Chairman of the FEC, David M. Mason, defended his actions of lobbying against parts of the reform legislation. "I think it is inaccurate to say, as some people say, that 'the commission created soft money.' What the commission did was make the distinction between federal money and nonfederal money and enacted some regulations to try to specify where the line was," Mason told UPI.

The line could have been drawn either tighter or looser, Mason said and added he sees the original FEC ruling as part of a normal administrative process.

Mason was critical of some parts of the reform legislation now before Congress that are unnecessarily complex or so vague they would be difficult to enforce. He said the actions of corporate and major contributors, including those with a stake in the outcome of environmental legislation, would change if soft money goes away.

Mason echoed some of the concerns of the environmental community. "The difference would be rather than giving the $80 million, they would spend it themselves or they'd spend it through the Chamber of Commerce or the American Petroleum Institute, or whatever," the FEC chairman said.