After raising a record $80 million for his presidential campaign, Gov. George W. Bush helped Republicans raise a record $21.5 million at a single fundraiser.
The latter record did not last long. President Clinton helped Democrats raise $26.5 million at a gala whose top category was for those raising or contributing $500,000 each.
In the last congressional elections, corporate interests made 10 times more total contributions than unions. Any party or candidate that does not tap into their contributions risks being at a financial disadvantage.
These unlimited contributions–called soft money–are allowed when given to political parties, which then use them to influence particular elections in circumvention of contribution limits to candidates. The House of Representatives passed legislation that would have ended soft money contributions, but it was blocked by a Republican filibuster in the Senate.
Al Gore has asked George Bush to join him in eschewing soft money, but the offer was refused. Gore has pledged to support the legislation ending soft money.
Bush proposes an end to soft money from corporations and unions but not from individuals.
Considering the source of most large contributions, it is not surprising that corporations usually prevail in many government decisions. No wonder corporate profits and stock prices have soared and the wealthy who own most stock have made almost all the income gains over the last 20 years while most two-parent families put in more hours of work just to avoid losing income. Indeed, the corporate viewpoint so pervades government and the media–themselves parts of large corporations–that they greatly acclaim soaring corporate profits while expressing grave concern over even modest wage increases.
It is hard to imagine government and media treating profits and wages evenhandedly.
Government will treat ordinary citizens fairly only when politicians are disconnected from the money machine, which can be accomplished by publicly funding election campaigns.
