Last night at the Wealthy Theatre, a screening of the new film The Big Buy: Tom DeLay’s Stolen Congress and a panel discussion following the film explored the influence of money and elections. The film provided an overview of the career of Texas representative Tom DeLay, who rose from relative obscurity to become one of the second most powerful members in the House of Representatives. As a representative, DeLay was given the nickname “the Hammer” for his strong-armed tactics in building a Republican consensus while also earning a reputation for being one of the party’s most valuable fundraisers. Of course, it was DeLay’s fundraising—which resulted in his eventual indictment—that provided the film’s primary subject matter. Unfortunately, rather than providing a comprehensive look at the issue of corporate influence in politics, the film provided a partisan look at the issue where DeLay and his cronies were vilified for their acceptance of corporate contributions while Democrats’ acceptance of the money went unchallenged. The film portrays Democrats who fought DeLay’s redistricting attempt as heroes, and while their efforts deserves credit, the manner in which it was presented in the film prevented an honest look at money in politics. Despite its intense partisanship, there were a few surprises in the film, most notably the film’s mention of how DeLay’s redistricting in Texas may have resulted in the passage of controversial legislation such as the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the recent energy bill.

Following the film, there was a discussion featuring Sue Levy of the Kent County Democratic Party, Dave Dishaw of the Kent County Republicans, and Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network (MCFN). For the most part, the panelists agreed that DeLay’s actions were illegal, although there were differences over whether or not it was his connections to Jack Abramoff or his work raising corporate money through Texans for a Republican Majority. The panel opened with moderator Jeff Smith of the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy (GRIID) asking the panel if contributions through political action committees (PACs) at both the national and state level were made with the expectation that they would get “returns” from candidates such as better legislation for their industries, tax breaks, or loosening of regulations. Rich Robinson answered that money given in this manner tends to drive policy and interest groups have no problem finding legislators that will respond to money. Robinson also pointed out that 95% of winners of state elections have had special interest money behind them. Both Sue Levy and Dave Dishaw agreed that contributions bought “access” to elected officials, but not direct influence.

This question led into a discussion of campaign finance reform, with the two major party representatives essentially advocating support for the status quo with minor alterations, while Rich Robinson argued that there is a need for more proactive measures. Dishaw said that the major problem with campaign finance is a lack of disclosure that then limits the public’s capacity to be informed about who is giving money to candidates. He opposed any limits on the amount of money that can be given while advocating a measure proposed by Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land that calls for instant online disclosure of contributions. Sue Levy also glossed over the issue of contributions, arguing that while the Republican Party is supported by relatively few wealthy donors, the Democratic Party receives so many small contributions that it is unable to account for them all. Robinson made the case that increased disclosure is not adequate, as in his view, it is not enough simply to say who bought the election, but rather people need to look at the possibility of publicly funding campaigns in order limit the influence of special interest groups. He cited recent experiments with this in Arizona and Maine where special interest groups have had their influence limited while the two parties have adopted more innovative legislation without special interest involvement. Unfortunately, campaign finance reform is not making much progress in Michigan, as Robinson explained that there are six bills dealing with the issue in the Michigan House of Representatives but they have not been brought up for a vote yet. The one with the best prospects for passage deals with increased disclosure, although a bill that would close a loophole allowing for unregulated “issue ads” “does not have a prayer.” Those wishing to get involved in campaign finance reform in the state of Michigan were encouraged to sign-up for the Michigan Campaign Finance Network’s mailing list on their website.

The question of media’s role in reporting on elections—by way of the discussion of the Alliance for Better Campaigns' proposal for free television airtime for political candidates—garnered a significant amount of attention during the discussion. Dave Dishaw of the Kent County Republican Party expressed opposition to such a proposal, stating that he believed it that the government cannot tell private, free-enterprise companies running television stations what to do and that it was a “slippery slope” if the country goes down the road of telling media outlets what they have to present their audiences. Dishaw’s statements ignored the fact that the airwaves used by the television broadcast media are publicly owned and that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does have some minimal standards requiring broadcast stations to serve the public interest. Rich Robinson pointed this out when he stated that broadcasters do have a public trust obligation and that right now they are not meeting this obligation and are instead focusing on coverage of how much money candidates are raising and who has the lead in opinion polls instead of focusing on issues. The panelists essentially agreed that the media in this country is doing an inadequate job of informing the public, which is in turn making it difficult for citizens to become informed and engaged participants in a democracy. Sue Levy of the Democratic Party also shared her belief that in the West Michigan area the media is promoting a Republican agenda. Similarly, Dick Dishaw explained that blogs have arisen to fill in some of the gaps left by the media’s poor coverage, although he expressed frustration at the fact that Democrats are “winning” in the “blogosphere.”