| Number 58 | February 11 , 2000 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, Welcome to all the new readers this week. And thank you to “old” readers Deb, Deborah, Chris, Charlie, Nancy, and Susan for passing on the names. I didn’t hear from anybody who was too excited about the Presidential campaign one way or the other, so I don’t plan to say much about it for now. I may pass on some resources for those who want to know some actual facts about the “major” candidates. Or maybe not. It does seem like these guys are living on another planet, doesn’t it? What they are not saying is quite a bit more interesting than what they are saying, so I will probably spend a lot more time filling in the blanks than anything else. We’ll see. I am really pushing up against the deadline here, so I’ll cut this short. Don’t forget: I love to get your comments and suggestions, so send ‘em on along! ‘Til next week, Nygaard P.S. Due to a reader request, I am sending out this week’s edition in ASCII Dos Text. I trust readers to tell me if this version is hard to read or looks odd. I can and will re-send in the standard version if you let me know. |
|
Conscientious reader Aaron (he used the word “persnickety”) wrote last week to inform me that “quote” is a verb and “quotation” is the related noun. His point was that Nygaard Notes should have a “Quotation of the Week” rather than a “Quote of the Week.” Since I quite enjoy the sound of “Quote,” much more so than the word “quotation,” I suddenly had to choose between pleasing myself or being grammatically correct. Fortunately, many years ago I was able to purchase a really good 2,129-page dictionary for $19.95 (Webster’s New Universal Unabridged). In that dictionary they say there is a “colloquial” form of the word “quote” which means “a quotation,” or “a quotation mark.” Since Nygaard Notes is nothing if not colloquial, I decided to stick with “Quote of the Week,” thus making myself happy. As an inside joke for regular readers, I will put the word “Quote” in quotes from now on. So there. N. |
|
“The booming economy is worsening a severe shortage of the low- wage workers who care for the nation's growing numbers of frail elderly people, health care experts say.” New York Times, January 3, 2000. |
|
I have actually had people ask me, “Who exactly are you talking about when you use the word ‘rich?’” For the record, when I use the word I am referring to the top 20% of the U.S. population who own 85% of everything in the country. Occasionally I will refer to the “super-rich,” by whom I mean the top 1% (one percent) of the population of our nation who alone own almost one/half of everything (somewhat more than 42%, in fact). Since the United States is arguably the wealthiest country in the history of the world, I think that it is descriptive to refer to the upper crust as “rich.” If some take offense at the word, might I suggest that perhaps they are offended by the grotesque reality of our economy rather than my choice of words. |
|
While checking up recently on the money that is funding the various candidates for President, I discovered that the largest contributor over the years to John McCain has been the regional telephone company US West. Since I make a monthly payment to US West for my local phone service, it occurred to me that I am making a contribution to the McCain campaign. Can we then infer from this that I support Mr. McCain? No. How about the idea that, as a contributor, I must have some influence over his campaign? No, again, and cries of “Don’t be ridiculous,” can be heard in the background. Similarly, when I was working as a bicycle courier in downtown Minneapolis, some of the money produced by my labor was used to lobby the City Council to defeat an ordinance that would have benefitted myself and the other bikers in the city. Did I, as a worker, have any influence on how the company spent their money to influence the laws affecting my workplace? The chorus is heard again: “Don’t be ridiculous.” I hope the following quotation from the website of the Coalition of Minnesota Businesses (CMB) will appear equally ridiculous: “The CMB is a non-partisan, grassroots organization comprised of 18 employer associations and local chambers of commerce in the Twin Cities and throughout greater Minnesota. The CMB represents hundreds of Minnesota businesses and tens of thousands of employees across the state.” If the last eight words of that quote do not appear ridiculous to you, don’t go away! Just keep these examples of ridiculosity (a new word!) in mind as I return in the next section to the subject of money in politics. |
|
Last week I mentioned an article that ran in the January 30th edition of the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) entitled “Investing in influence at the Capitol; Advocates spend a bundle of time and money making their legislative interests heard.” I said this was a classic example of getting the facts right and the story wrong. Since it is so classic, I want to spend a little more time on it this week. The headline might lead one to believe that the article would show:
The Invisible Money The Star Trib produced its report by doing a “computer-assisted analysis of lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions by more than 1,000 interest groups,” using data compiled by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. The Star Trib based its report on the spending (over the past 5 years) of the top 100 “interest groups” which together “account for 90 percent of the campaign expenditures and 95 percent of the legislative lobbying expenses during that [5-year] period.” This may seem like it would be meaningful, but let’s look a little closer. As I pointed out elsewhere in this issue, wealth is highly concentrated in this society, and that concentrated wealth works its way into the political arena in a million ways. Two weeks ago I presented an idea that might be called the Investment Theory of Money in Politics. (Nygaard Notes #56: “So... How About That Campaign?”) This theory says that the power of money in politics lies not so much in “buying” votes or candidates as in making it possible for “money-friendly” candidates and issues to prevail. This theory relies less on corruption and cynicism to explain our political system, and more on a “market analysis” in which the monied classes “invest” in candidates and issues the success of which will promote or preserve their money and power. Veteran reporter Dane Smith acknowledged the limitations of the data he was able to get when he stated, “The figures do not include lobbyists' salaries, a major expense that doesn't have to be disclosed, nor do they include contributions from individuals to candidates.” Smith goes on to say that “Money spent on campaign contributions and lobbying is by no means a perfect measure of power or clout. Some groups find other ways to influence legislators, through grass-roots community organizing or by effectively using the news media.” Or, of course, by spending money that doesn’t show up in the Star Trib’s numbers, which I will call Invisible Money. Invisible Money appears in many forms in the American political system. Unknown amounts of “soft money” (money not intended to help any particular candidate) can be given to political parties to spend as they choose. Also, rich companies and individuals can buy as many advertisements as they want in order to push certain points of view on the public. Importantly, conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation or Minnesota’s own Center of the American Experiment are given enormous sums of money to do research and propaganda in the interests of preserving the status quo. Often these dollars are spent with the obvious intent to help specific candidates, but none of them have to be reported unless they are“officially” being spent to help a specific candidate. With important exceptions, the monied classes tend to support candidates and issues that are literally “conservative” in the sense that they want to “conserve” the system that brought them their power and privilege. By focusing only on campaign expenditures and lobbying “expenses,” the Star Trib has already agreed to ignore innumerable dollars of Invisible Money. (The fact that so much of this money is free from reporting requirements is itself a testament to the power of money.) The United States Supreme Court has decided that we can’t put many limits on the ability to spend one’s money in these ways, since spending money is a form of “free speech” protected by the Constitution. Need I point out that this “freedom” is one that applies only to the monied classes? For those of us with no money, the “freedom” to spend it to influence the political process is but a cruel abstraction. The Visible Money In the Star Trib’s report we can see the names of the “interest groups,” since they are listed in a big chart accompanying the article. But since they are divided into various categories that don’t seem to explain much, it’s hard to make much sense out of them. For one thing, it’s hard to tell which groups are actually in these categories, let alone who is in those groups within the categories. The money is visible, but the real sources of the money are not clear. For example, there is an interest group listed as “Farmers,” that spent a quarter of a million dollars for lobbying. Which farmers? Are these small family farmers trying to block corporate mergers? Or is it corporate agribusiness trying to get tax breaks? Maybe it’s hobby farmers trying to get funding for infrastructure improvements. We don’t know. Down the list (ranked 69th) there actually is a category called “Agribusiness,” which officially spent only $45,000 over a four year period. Oh, come on! That wouldn’t even pay for one half-time lobbyist, and this state is the home of Cargill and Hormel. It’s hard to escape the suspicion that there’s a lot of Invisible Money here somewhere. The rest of the list is equally unintelligible. Take the category of “Retailers.” Would that be Wal-Mart and Best Buy? Or is it association of small town independents? Their interests would be a little different, doncha think? How about “Arts/Cultural?” Is that the Guthrie Theatre, which is lobbying right now to get state funding for a new building (similar to the Twins’ effort to get a new baseball stadium paid for)? Or is it a consortium of community artists looking for funding for arts in the schools? These are not the same things at all. Ranked 13th on the list is “Abortion opponents.” They are not listed as “Abortion-Rights Opponents,” even though there is a category (#84) called “Abortion-rights advocates.” There is a listing for “Women’s Politics,” whatever that is. How about #21, “Health Advocacy?” I didn’t see “Health Opponents” listed. And so it goes. It’s a very strange list. If we were to make a list of “interest groups” and attempt to divide them by class membership, I think we’d see that the “haves” are pursuing quite a different agenda than the “have-nots.” That’s a big research project. I doubt the Star Trib will take it on, and I certainly don’t have the time (meaning: money) to do it, at least not yet. In Nygaard Notes #59 I will continue looking at this strange list, asking such questions as “Why is union spending different than business spending?” and “Are the biggest spenders on the list getting what they want from the legislature?” The answers may surprise you. They may surprise me, too. We’ll find out next week. |