ALTHOUGH President Bush's inauguration has drawn criticism for its high price tag, a much more serious issue has been largely ignored. Over the past two decades, corporations and private interest have increasingly bankrolled presidential inaugurations. This development represents a major threat to American democracy.
Yesterday's inauguration has been another opportunity for influence peddling for corporations and private interests. An article published on CNN.com on Jan. 13 reported that corporations such as Bank of America and pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb have individually donated as much as $250,000 to pay for this year's elaborate inaugural festivities.Through such donations, the Bush administration has amassed $18 million dollars in funds to pay for the inauguration in the few weeks since the election. Although some defenders of this practice would say that these contributions are harmless because they do not directly aid the president's political campaign, they ignore the real impact of these donations. Indeed, when a corporation such as Bristol-Myers Squibb donates $250,000, their lobbyists gain special access to one of the largest political gatherings of the year. This access allows corporations the opportunity to influence lawmakers on important pieces of legislation, and explains why a for-profit company would be willing to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to finance a party for officials in Washington.
Unfortunately, the corporation contributions to the presidential inauguration is just one aspect of the business of influence peddling in Washington. Indeed, by contributing money to political campaigns and events and by retaining a large number of full-time lobbyists, corporations and political pressure groups are able to promote their agenda in the policymaking process. The influence they wield in this manner muffles the voice of American citizens in the day-to-day aspects of policymaking. Moreover, the contributions to the inaugural festivities represent a special case of abuse because current laws forbid labor unions and other political interest groups from making contributions since such groups are wrongly thought to be more politically motivated than corporate donors. This exclusion eliminates checks on the influence of corporate lobbying and gives corporate interests an even greater degree of influence of political officials.
While corporations have exercised undue influence through the financing of this presidential inauguration, it is important to note that corporate and special interest donations pervade both parties in America. A Wall Street Journal piece published on Jan. 11 noted that "about 20 of the 90 corporate donors (to the presidential inauguration) gave to the Democratic and Republican conventions." Because both parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, it is very difficult to launch reforms that will effectively check the influence of special interest groups.
With this in mind, there are several immediate steps that Congress could take to combat this problem. First, Congress could extend the provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill, capping campaign donations to inaugurations and conventions. In addition, Congress should also amend the law so that environmental and labor interest groups can contribute to political campaigns under the same laws as corporate contributors. These steps would reduce the ability of corporate interests to by influence for their lobbyists while checking the power of any single interest group by giving competing groups an equal degree of influence through inaugural events.
While these steps would help address the immediate problems associated with funding presidential inaugurations, they would do little to address the underlying culture of special interest influence in America's political institutions. If this larger problem is to be addressed, the more ambitious reforms would be necessary. While there is no single way to address this problem, Congress could start by requiring politicians to report all contributions on a more regular basis than the current quarterly reports. Congress could also create a database that records all political contributions and correlates them with the actions of politicians. These measures would enhance the transparency of political donations and give the public a better grasp on influence of special interests on their political representatives.
With all this in mind, it is clear that the real story of inauguration day has much more to do with the influence exerted by interest groups behind the scenes than the words uttered by the president when the cameras are rolling. If Congress fails to address this issue, the lobbyists in the ballrooms will continue to have more influence on the political process than any citizen watching the inauguration from home.
Adam Keith's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at akeith@cavalierdaily.com
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 16 hours agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 2 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 3 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
