Many liberals, echoed by the Washington press corps, insist that the Enron case demonstrates the need to get corporate influence-buying out of politics by enacting “campaign finance reform.”
A new study, however, by the far-left U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), documented how the bills to curb soft money donations would have had little impact on Enron’s recent donations. But don’t expect many in the media, who regularly cite PIRG when the group denounces conservative policies, to mention the PIRG study which undermines the media’s case for McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan. (PIRG advocates much more drastic hard money donation limits.)
The AP wrote a story on January 30 about the PIRG numbers and USA Today ran a short story on page 3 of the Money section on January 31.
On its website PIRG listed its key findings:
- “More than 62 percent of Enron's and Arthur Andersen's combined $11.2 million in political contributions since the 1990 election cycle were made with ‘hard money.’ The Shays-Meehan bill significantly increases hard money limits.”
- “Kenneth and Linda Lay gave $882,580 in hard and soft money combined since the 1990 election cycle. Under Shays-Meehan's and McCain-Feingold's increased contribution limits, the Lays would have been able to give $975,000 in hard money alone during that period.”
- “Enron employees have made $508,000 in $1,000 contributions since the 1990 election cycle. Arthur Andersen's employees made $294,000 in $1,000 contributions during the same period. McCain-Feingold's increased contribution limits would allow these wealthy executives to double their contributions.”
- “Through giving to state parties, issue groups, or independent expenditures, Enron and Andersen could have spent the same amount of soft money under Shays-Meehan as they did previously.”
- “Since 1997, Enron's and Andersen's lobbying expenditures dwarfed their campaign contributions. Enron has spent more than $7.5 million on lobbying since 1997, nearly double their $3.8 million in campaign contributions over the same period. Andersen spent $9.6 million on lobbying, compared to $2.8 million on campaigns over the same period.”
CBS's Dan Rather and NBC's Katie Couric on Jan. 25 used the Enron scandal as an excuse to push for campaign finance “reform.”
Rather pleaded: “In tonight's Eye on America, CBS gives you an in-depth look at the sudden revival of congressional interest in legislation that's been killed more times than Dracula: Legislation for serious campaign finance reform. In the wake of the Enron fiasco, will Congress finally put its votes where its mouth is?”
Earlier that day, Today co-host Katie Couric conveyed her wishes to MSNBC/CNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews: “What does this portend for, for campaign finance reform? Could this be the straw that breaks the camel's back that makes people say, 'Enough is enough! This has got to happen! We don't care what those folks on Capitol Hill say?'”
So far, not a word on either show about the evidence that more regulation would have done nothing to curb what Rather and Couric find so disturbing. If the media ever do take up the PIRG analysis, however, they’ll probably use it not to show how another regulatory scheme won’t solve anything but that, as PIRG maintains, the current bills don’t propose enough new regulation.
(This update courtesy of the Media Research Center.)
