Corporate Donations Are Controlling Congress

It should come as no secret to anyone paying attention to what's going on in Congress that very little is being done to protect workers and consumers, while corporations and the financial interests on Wall Street seem to get everything they want. Why is this happening?

It's no secret (although many congresspeople probably wish it was). Those in Congress tend to pass laws that benefit their campaign donors and block laws that would regulate those donors. And the biggest campaign donors are Wall Street and the Corporations.

An especially effective way to create or block bills in Congress is to contribute to the committee heads, because those individuals have enormous power and can control what bills get reported out of their committee and what bills die in that committee. That's why many industries target their campaign giving to those committee chairmen (and sometimes the ranking member) of the committees in Congress that oversee the actions of their industry. By directing their money to those members of Congress, they can get more bang for their buck in controlling bills that affect their particular industry.

This represents a clear conflict of interest for industries to be donating to the very people appointed to oversee them, but sadly, it is legal. The folks at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has studied this campaign giving to committee chairs, and it doesn't paint a pretty picture. The figures below show the amount of money given to committee chairs (Republicans) in the House of Representatives in the 2012 election by the industries their committee oversees, along with the percentage of their total donations those industry donations comprised. It also includes giving to ranking members (Democrats), which those industries made to cover themselves in case the House was flipped.

AGRICULTURE
Frank Lucas (R-Oklahoma)..........$735,742 (47%)
Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota)..........$522,318 (51%)

ARMED SERVICES
Buck McKeon (R-California)..........$566,100 (30%)
Adam Smith (D-Washington)..........$201,000 (18%)

EDUCATION AND THE WORKPLACE
John Kline (R-Minnesota)..........$305,159 (14%)
George Miller (D-California)..........$220,192 (33%)

ENERGY AND COMMERCE
Fred Upton (R-Michigan)..........$1,873,723 (47%)
Henry Waxman (D-California)..........$667,050 (37%)

FINANCIAL SERVICES
Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)..........$1,190,006 (41%)
Maxine Waters (D-California)..........$152,050 (24%)

HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael McCaul (R-Texas)..........$135,700 (12%)
Bennie G. Thompson (D-Mississippi)..........$234,400 (21%)

JUDICIARY
Robert Goodlatte (R-Virginia)..........$88,793 (6%)
John Conyers (D-Michigan)..........$115,982 (12%)

NATURAL RESOURCES
Doc Hastings (R-Washington)..........$309,771 (23%)
Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts)..........$27,500 (3%)

SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY
Lamar Smith (R-Texas)..........$120,150 (7%)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas)..........$80,449 (11%)

TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Bill Shuster (R-Pennsylvania)..........$502,016 (30%)
Nick J. Rahall II (D-West Virginia)..........$496,548 (37%)

Viewing these numbers, it becomes clear why industry is favored over workers and consumers. If these committee chairs (or ranking members) vote to regulate the industry they are overseeing, many of them stand to lose a substantial chunk of their campaign donations. That's a pretty big incentive to favor industry interests.

This brings up a valid question. Should committee chairs or ranking members (or even others on those committees) be allowed to accept campaign donations from the industries they oversee? I think not, because it is a conflict of interest. What do you think?