We Have the Best Government Money Can Buy

The Sunlight Foundation has done more to document the influence of money over our government than any other organization and they’ve produced an exhaustive new study that shows the staggering return the most politically active corporations receive for their investment of billions of dollars in campaign contributions and lobbying. The study examines the 200 most active companies in this regard between 2007 and 2012, three years before and after the Citizens United ruling. The results are entirely unsurprising.

Between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America’s most politically active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions. A year-long analysis by the Sunlight Foundation suggests, however, that what they gave pales compared to what those same corporations got: $4.4 trillion in federal business and support.

That figure, more than the $4.3 trillion the federal government paid the nation’s 50 million Social Security recipients over the same period, is the result of an unprecedented effort to quantify the less-examined side of the campaign finance equation: Do political donors get something in return for what they give?

Four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested the answer to that question was no. Corporate spending to influence federal elections would not “give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,” the majority wrote in the landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.

Sunlight decided to test that premise by examining influence and its potential results on federal decision makers over six years, three before the 2010 Citizens United decision and three after.

We focused on the records of 200 for-profit corporations, all of which had active political action committees and lobbyists in the 2008, 2010 and 2012 election cycles — and were among the top donors to campaign committees registered with the Federal Election Commission. Their investment in politics was enormous. There were 20,500 paying lobbying clients over the six years we examined; the 200 companies we tracked accounted for a whopping 26 percent of the total spent. On average, their PACs, employees and their family members made campaign contributions to 144 sitting members of Congress each cycle.

After examining 14 million records, including data on campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures, federal budget allocations and spending, we found that, on average, for every dollar spent on influencing politics, the nation’s most politically active corporations received $760 from the government. The $4.4 trillion total represents two-thirds of the $6.5 trillion that individual taxpayers paid into the federal treasury.

Welcome to the world of “Fixed Fortunes,” a seemingly closed universe where the most persistent and savvy political players not so mysteriously have the ability to attract federal dollars regardless of who is running Washington.

No one can be surprised by this. To be surprised, one would have to believe that all of those huge corporations have been consistently throwing away huge amounts of money for nothing. They did not become hugely profitable by making bad investments. They spend billions on lobbying and campaign contributions because it garners them government contracts, lower taxes and thus bigger profits.

"http://www.cbc.ca/news/busi... https://www.washingtontimes...http://edition.cnn.com/2010...Yep, the deal was completely hidden away from the public."

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."
"This is truly stupid.Uranium One was a Canadian company.Uranium mined in the US has to ..."

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."
"Uranium One wasn't *yours* either.Your point?"

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Michael Heath

    Ed writes:

    They spend billions on lobbying and campaign contributions because it garners them government contracts, lower taxes and thus bigger profits.

    Well, their largesse also influences public policy in a manner that creates and increases barriers to entry for competing businesses or business sectors.

    They also invest in politicians to transfer their costs onto taxpayers and others. A good illustration of this is the coal and natural gas sectors keep electricity rates way below the total cost of generating electricity from coal or natural gas, thereby making it difficult for competing sectors to gain market share.

    The sheepish voters who support these policies, i.e., conservatives, libertarians, and populists from the right and left, then claim government shouldn’t intervene in changing these policies. That doing so is either apostasy relative to free market principles and would increase costs. That argument in turn explodes the irony and psychological projection meters of reasonable well-informed people everywhere.

  • fmitchell

    Ha! You can’t *prove* any form of quid-pro-quo any more than you can *prove* global climate change, evolution, or that smoking causes cancer!

    Dictated to my iPhone from a hole in the sand.

  • theguy

    “$4.4 trillion in federal business and support.

    That figure, more than the $4.3 trillion the federal government paid the nation’s 50 million Social Security recipients over the same period”

    I bet some of the 4.4 trillion goes towards the same people who complain there’s a government budget crisis and benefits for the poor have to be cut immediately. This gives me a very different idea where to cut costs…

  • abb3w

    But does the new evidence help provide anyone with standing a basis for a new lawsuit?

  • Kevin Kehres

    I don’t get it…

    Seems to me that if they just paid their fair share of taxes, they wouldn’t have to spend all that money lobbying for lower taxes.

    Zero sum game, it appears.