10-14-2000

CAMPAIGN FINANCE: Why Interest Groups Go Soft

If Al Gore wins the presidency, or if the Democrats capture the House or
the Senate, expect trial lawyers, union leaders, and entertainment
industry heavyweights to come calling after Election Day.


Likewise, if George W. Bush captures the White House or if Republicans
hang on to their majority in the House, get ready for representatives of
the oil and gas industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the gun lobby
to remind Republicans of the role their groups played in the election
campaign.


This election season, both parties have relied heavily on interest groups
to come through with big "soft-money" donations, which are being
used to help finance both ad campaigns and get-out-the-vote efforts. Some
of the contributors-such as unions that are looking for a stronger federal
role in workplace regulation, and big businesses that are looking for less
regulation and lower taxes-have long-standing ideological ties to
Democrats or Republicans. Other contributors either have new agendas they
want to push next year, or are spending money to help fend off attacks
from the presidential candidates. For instance, Bush often depicts trial
lawyers as people who are enriching themselves at the expense of Main
Street businesses, while Gore knocks big oil and the pharmaceutical
companies for profiteering at the expense of middle-class
consumers.


"These businesses and sectors have been traditional whipping boys for
both sides for years," says Larry Makinson, the executive director of
the Center for Responsive Politics. "The parties are exploiting the
fears of these groups. It's a powerful incentive to write big
checks."


Indeed, many of the most generous donors of soft money to both parties
were also among the heaviest givers of "hard money" to the
presidential campaign of Bush or Gore, and that should give additional
leverage to the groups whose man wins the presidency.


To be sure, both parties also have lots of soft-money donors who are
hedging their bets out of caution, or because they're not as ideologically
committed as other interest groups and they regard both parties as
potential allies. Sectors such as telecommunications and securities and
investment have poured millions of dollars into the coffers of both
parties to ensure that their business interests are well positioned,
regardless of who wins.


But the interest groups that are caught in the cross fire of the election
campaign are the ones feeling the greatest heat to contribute to their
friends.


"Some of these sectors have become issues in the campaign, and
whether they like it or not, they've been forced to take sides," says
Larry Sabato, a professor of political science at the University of
Virginia.


Here's a look at some of the major players on both sides.


Organized Labor


Unions have been in the vanguard of big givers to the Democrats this
election season. In the first 18 months of the election cycle, unions
contributed $15.8 million in soft money to the three major Democratic
Party campaign committees, more than triple the $4.7 million they donated
to the same groups in the same period four years ago.


The Service Employees International Union, which has pumped almost $2.9
million into Democratic war chests, leads the pack. Andrew Stern, the
union's president, says that his members are primarily concerned with
enacting a patients' bill of rights, a Medicare prescription drug benefit,
and legislation that increases access to health care for children.


Stern says that his union, which represents more health care workers than
any other union, has been disillusioned with Bush's track record in Texas.
"The governor hasn't spent the federal money he was given to expand
the number of children receiving health care," he says. Stern says
that the nursing homes that his union represents in Texas are
"enormously underfunded."


Labor has several other workplace issues high on its agenda, including the
expansion of family and medical leave; equal pay for female workers;
changes in mandatory overtime rules; and a revamping of the rules that
restrict labor's ability to organize.


Trial Lawyers


Flush with funds from settling tobacco industry litigations, trial lawyers
have stepped up their financial support for Democrats. In the first 18
months of this cycle, trial lawyers kicked in $7.3 million in soft money
to Democratic coffers. This is more than double the $3 million they gave
over the same period during 1995-96.


The trial lawyers make no secret of their distaste for Bush, who helped
push through one of the nation's toughest tort reform measures not long
after he became governor of Texas. They want to make sure that Bush
doesn't have a chance to lead a similar effort as President.


"Bush is a tort reformer," says Baltimore trial lawyer Peter G.
Angelos, one of the Democrats' top individual soft-money givers.
"He's an agent provocateur of the big-money interests, those who feel
that if an injured person sues for a civil wrong, it's un-American. He
thinks what needs to be done is to protect big corporations from legal
action. I think lawyers recognize what the GOP is attempting to do and are
rallying together to oppose the election of their standard-bearer."
Angelos and his law firm, which handled a tobacco industry settlement for
Maryland, have so far this cycle kicked in more than $907,000 in soft
money to the Democrats.


Entertainment Industry


Hollywood is also counting on a Gore Administration and a Democratic House
to be friendly to its interests. Entertainment and media interests in the
first 18 months of this cycle gave $7.1 million in soft money to
Democrats, compared with $3.6 million during the same period four years
ago.


Some of the biggest donors say their giving is predominantly a result of
the Democrats' liberal stands on issues such as gun control and the
environment. "We feel that the policies of the Clinton-Gore
Administration have been good for America," says Andy Spahn, an
executive with DreamWorks SKG. The company's $578,000 gift to the
Democrats makes DreamWorks Hollywood's biggest soft-money donor.
"They've grown the economy effectively with strong regard for the
less fortunate. Our giving is values-driven."


In the wake of a scathing report from the Federal Trade Commission about
the industry's targeting of adult entertainment at children, Hollywood is
hoping that Washington will not impose new regulations on the industry.
Both Gore and his running mate, Joe Lieberman, castigated the industry for
its marketing practices shortly after the FTC report was released.
"We obviously don't agree with some of the statements that Gore and
Lieberman made with regard to a possible role for the government in the
creative process," said Spahn. But, he adds, "we look forward to
working with Gore and Lieberman on these issues. I'm sure we can have a
meaningful dialogue. We won't always agree."


By contrast, says Spahn, in 1996 the GOP "ran against Hollywood in
the "most hypocritical fashion." Spahn faults Bush for his
comments on the roots of violence in our society and says the Republican
nominee "failed to adequately address the gun issue and to distance
himself from the [National Rifle Association]."


Oil and Gas


On the Republican side, several sectors have also stepped up their
donations substantially. Take oil and gas. In the first 18 months of this
election season, the oil and gas industry contributed $6.6 million, or 75
percent of its $8.8 million in soft-money donations, to the Republicans,
according to Common Cause. The industry ranks third behind securities and
telecommunications in total soft-money contributions to the Republicans.
Many of Bush's leading Oil Patch backers-such as natural-gas giant Enron
Corp., the top patron of his political career-like his record in Texas of
using flexible regulatory programs to let the private sector reduce
pollution.


Houston-based Conoco is a member of the Republicans' elite "Team
100" donor group, by dint of contributing $175,000 every four years.
Archie Dunham, Conoco's chief executive officer, reflects the thinking of
many in his industry.


"I think Governor Bush very quickly would develop a comprehensive
national energy policy," says Dunham, who chaired the Bush campaign's
hard-money fund-raising effort in the oil community. The Clinton
Administration, he charges, has failed over eight years to establish an
energy policy, and "we're suffering the consequences with record-high
oil and gas prices." Specifically, Dunham blames the Clinton
Administration for "locking us out of the Arctic, the East Coast, and
the West Coast from drilling." He also blasts the Clinton
Administration for "overly strong environmental rules" issued
through executive orders.


The oil industry also frets about Gore's views on the environment and his
recent remarks suggesting that he would focus much of his energy policy on
reducing demand through tougher energy-efficiency programs and increased
conservation. By contrast, Bush relies more on new drilling and more
refineries. Bush also opposes the Kyoto Protocol. The global accord, which
Gore was involved in negotiating, would curb the greenhouse gases that
have been linked to global warming.


Pharmaceutical Industry


Pharmaceutical and medical supply companies have also been very generous
to Republican Party committees this cycle. These companies have given
about 60 percent of their soft money to Republicans, according to Common
Cause. Overall, these interest groups have contributed a total of $9.2
million in soft money to the political parties in the first 18 months of
this cycle, or more than double the $4.6 million they gave in the same
period four years ago.


Analysts say that GOP committees have garnered $5.6 million of the
industries' $9.2 million donations, in part because Republicans have
generally supported industry-backed proposals for providing a prescription
drug benefit to seniors through private insurance. By contrast, the White
House and many Democrats favor making prescription drugs for the elderly a
new benefit under Medicare. Drug companies have also provided the lion's
share of the almost $20 million in soft money that Citizens for Better
Medicare has spent in the past few months on ads that tout GOP
prescription drug proposals.


The Gun Lobby


Another special-interest group giving record sums to the GOP is the
National Rifle Association. So far this cycle, the NRA has contributed
almost $1.1 million in unregulated funds, putting it near the top of
organizations or corporations that give to Republican committees. For
James J. Baker, the NRA's top lobbyist, this year's choice is clear-cut.
"The obvious reason that all our soft money is going to the GOP is
that the Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate and the
White House have been decidedly anti-gun for the last eight years,"
says Baker. "That's not to say there aren't pro-gun Democrats"
to whose campaigns the NRA contributes, he adds.


If Bush wins in November and the Republicans keep the House, a top NRA
priority would be to halt the wave, which the Clinton Administration has
helped foster, of legal actions against gunmakers by cities and states.
These have been attempts, says Baker, to "drive the gun industry out
of business through frivolous lawsuits." Given Bush's strong record
on tort reform in Texas and his generally pro-gun background, a Bush
Administration would probably agree with the NRA goal. Bush also backed a
law in Texas that allowed the carrying of concealed weapons-a top NRA
priority. A Bush presidency, combined with a Republican-controlled
Congress, might embolden the NRA to try for a national concealed-carry
weapons bill.


Other GOP Givers


Lots of other soft-money players in the business community and on K Street
have increased their giving this year. And they're looking to a Bush White
House and a Republican-controlled Congress to deliver on such top
priorities as less regulation, bigger tax cuts, and tort reform. One such
donor is Food Distributors International, an industry trade group that
this cycle has contributed a hefty $250,000 to Republican committees. Last
cycle, the group gave only about $100,000 to the GOP.


"There's no doubt in my mind that if Democrats rule Congress or the
White House, taxes will be higher, regulations will be more severe, and
we'll have a bigger government," says John R. Block, the president of
Food Distributors and a former Agriculture Secretary in the Reagan
Administration. "Republicans are willing to cut death taxes, and
they'll cut capital gains, too."


Block adds that the Clinton Administration has pushed hard for an
ergonomics rule that his trade group opposes and has filed lawsuits to
stop: "It will be very costly to our industry and to consumers."
Block says that if Bush is elected, the agencies that have been
"moving ahead with regulations without appropriate authorizing
legislation are going to have their chains pulled."


Similarly, Frederick L. Webber, the president of the American Chemistry
Council, says he thinks that tort reform would be an early goal for Bush.
"He's signaled that it would be a top priority," says Webber,
who raised more than $100,000 in hard money for the Bush campaign, and
whose group kicked in $250,000 to the Republican Party in the first 18
months of this cycle. "What intrigues us about a Bush White
House," he says, "is his ability to break the gridlock and get
the job done."


Peter H. Stone

National Journal