Tuesday, January 24, 2006

CHRIS CHRISTOFF: State laws do little to limit lobbyists' largesse
Too late to change anything for this year, but this is an ominous portent of what could radically influence the governor's race.

You don't have to be a political junkie to chuckle at Democrats and Republicans in Congress falling over each other to demonstrate their virtue in the wake of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, each side posing so-called reforms to cleanse any stains that may splatter them.

Prohibitions of gifts, meals and travel paid for by lobbyists. More disclosure of campaign contributions. Prohibit lobbyists from the floors of the U.S. House and Senate, or congressional gyms.

You'd think we'd see members of Congress barefoot, wearing sackcloth with shaved heads. If you can no longer call a lobbyist for a game of squash, repentance is at hand.

I'd pay good money to see members of Congress in sackcloth with shaved heads. Maybe we should make that part of the "reform". Heh.

Turning to Michigan-

Lobbyists still can pay for nice trips for legislators. In fact, lobbyists only have to report travel expenses for elected officials that exceed $675, and don't have to divulge where they went. A $600 gift would cover a weekend Up North for many Michigan families.

Elected officials don't have to report lobbyist-paid trips, meals or gifts.

Lawmakers can still leave elected office one day and start lobbying their former colleagues the next.

Not good, but the glaring problem comes with undisclosed campaign contributions and PACs.

Michigan is one of only three states that do not require state elected officials or their top appointees to disclose personal finances in order to reveal potential conflicts of interest.

Rules to expose campaign contributions have holes in them. It can be a year or more between the time lawmakers receive a large donation and the date they must disclose it. That's a lot of time for a special interest to influence public policy undercover.

Corporations cannot contribute to candidates directly, but they and anyone else can contribute with no limits to independent PACs and political parties, which, in turn, can contribute unlimited amounts to candidates.

It amounts to legal money laundering, said Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, the state's premier watchdog of political contributions.

The newest twist is lawmakers who create private, nonprofit "foundations" that are little more than campaign slush funds that legally can accept corporate money and keep it hidden.

More and more I'm starting to believe that our government, national and maybe state too, is not the voice of "the people", but more the voice of big money and special interests.

And yes, I'm obviously new to this planet.

But still the unabashed words of Betsy DeVos ring in my ears. They intend to "buy" the government.


"I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican Party," Betsy DeVos wrote in an op-ed for the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call. "I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect some things in return.

And with Michigan's lax campaign and lobbyist laws, they might get away with it.