<< back to "Top Reforms Needed" -- 1 -- 2 -- 3 -- 4 -- 5 -- 6 -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 >>

Get Big Money Out Of Politics:

Already this year, Congress has enacted, and the President has signed, a weak campaign finance proposal that will actually allow Ken and Linda Lay to contribute more in hard money alone than they contributed in hard and soft money combined. Instead, Congress should have lowered campaign contribution limits, not raised them. The new law won't stop big money from influencing elections and the political process.

Enron and Arthur Andersen could have contributed as much money to political campaigns had the Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold proposals been law for the past 14 years as they did under current law, according to the PIRG report "Phantom Fixes: How the Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold Bills Would Not Have Curtailed Enron's and Arthur Andersen's Campaign Spending." The February 2002 study analyzes the giving patterns of the two companies and the impact of proposed solutions to the problem of money in politics on that spending.

The report's major findings include:

• More than 62% 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. Current proposals would do nothing to curtail this, and would actually boost the influence of lobbyists, since 92% of contributions from the top lobbying firms in the 2000 election cycle were made with hard money.

For more information about real campaign finance reform, check the state PIRG democracy site news room.

<< back to "Top Reforms Needed" -- 1 -- 2 -- 3 -- 4 -- 5 -- 6 -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 >>