DNC sponsorships raise questions on motivations
Companies sign on by dozens to help party gathering
By Kevin Vaughan, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published May 12, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
The Rocky Photo Illustration
DNC sponsorships raise questions on motivations
Everything is for sale, and this summer's Democratic National Convention in Denver is no exception.
More than four dozen national corporations have signed up as sponsors of the convention - everyone from Allstate to Xerox. And almost all of them have the same thing in common: They either have business with the federal government or they lobby on pending issues.
And that prompts a myriad of questions.
Are the big companies simply being good corporate citizens? Or are they looking for access - maybe not to the presidential nominee, but to members of Congress and party officials who can help make sure their issues get heard?
The answer is simple, said former Denver City Councilwoman Susan Barnes-Gelt: "It's always about access."
"Here's the reality," Barnes- Gelt said, "and this comes from the experience of an old fundraiser: The first people you go to for money are people who have an interest in making sure you're in a decision-making position. And that's true whether you're the DNC, the president of the United States or the local city council person."
Not only Democrats
To date, the Democratic National Convention Host Committee has lined up 56 corporate sponsors.
A few have local ties, like Qwest, Molson Coors and Vail Resorts. Others are huge national corporations, such as Anheuser-Busch, Union Pacific and 3M.
It is not a phenomenon unique to the Democrats or Denver. A slew of corporate donors have lined up for the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, and 20 of them also are sponsoring the DNC.
They include companies like 3M, Allstate, AstraZeneca, AT&T, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co., Ford, Merck, Qwest, the Service Employees International Union, US Bank, Visa and Xcel Energy.
"Welcome to the American political system," Barnes-Gelt said of the companies ponying up money on both sides of the aisle.
Chris Lopez of the Democratic National Convention Host Committee acknowledged that sponsors get "opportunities" that depend on the level of their support. Those opportunities can include tickets to events surrounding the convention and even access to the Pepsi Center itself, where the convention will be held.
The host committee does not have to file documents outlining the level of sponsorships until after the convention. But Lopez said the access goes up as the contributions do.
Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics said corporations sponsor political conventions for the same reason they sponsor sporting events: to build goodwill. And at political conventions, executives get access to influential people, Ritsch said. "Corporations aren't allowed to contribute directly to political parties or candidates' campaigns, but they can subsidize the gatherings that show off a party's candidate to American voters and get the candidate officially nominated," Ritsch wrote in an e-mail interview.
"Money from these corporate donors helps the party, it helps the candidate, and to call it anything other than a campaign contribution is to make a distinction without a difference."
Interests in government
Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may be spending all their time talking about flag pins and the Iraq war, about a gas tax holiday and health care, but federal Lobbying Disclosure Act records show the companies sponsoring this summer's convention in Denver have many other interests in Washington.
Qwest, for example, is interested in a rewrite of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Molson Coors has an interest in tax policy, alcohol advertising and self- regulation, excise taxes on beer and other issues. Coca-Cola is looking at the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2007 and other issues.
And on it goes - scores of issues the sponsors have lobbied on.
"Since the conventions are basically party functions, and the money goes to pay for what the party wants to do, in part these convention contributions are like campaign contributions," said Steve Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute. "And campaign contributions reinforce lobbying representations because you can get in much more easily to see somebody if you're a donor."
Weissman said he believes that convention sponsorships amount to contributions directly to political candidates.
"We have long made the point that even if some of these companies and individuals have in their mind that they are contributing to support the promotion of the local city, like Denver, that that may not be the only thing they have in their mind," Weissman said. "And whatever they have in their mind, it will be something that can add to the bonds of gratitude of political candidates.
"After all, what is a convention but the largest political ad?"
Staff writer M.E. Sprengelmeyer contributed to this report.
This year's political conventions brought to you by . . .
Organizations that have committed to sponsor both the Democratic National Convention in Denver and the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis and some of the issues they have lobbied on:
* QWEST
General business issues; rewrite of the 1996 Telecommunications Act; universal service reform; video franchise relief; broadband deployment; protection of records
* XCEL ENERGY
Climate change, renewable energy-related issues; Clean Energy Act of 2007; Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007; wind production tax credit; Climate Security Act
* SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
Contracting out of security guard functions by federal agencies; National Defense Authorization Act
* AT&T
Telecom issues, including implementation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act; congressional oversight and video franchise reform; Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act; cash balance issues in the Pension Protection Act
* ASTRAZENECA
Drug importation; foreign drug inspection program; Medicaid drug rebates; drug safety; pediatric drug provisions; compounding issues; Children's Health Insurance Program
* TRAVELERS INSURANCE
Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007; Homeowners Defense Act of 2007; National Insurance Act of 2007; Nondiscriminatory Use of Consumer Reports and Consumer Information Act of 2008; Homeowners Insurance Protection Act of 2007
* 3M
Emissions control and safety systems; airline and baggage security issues; federal appropriations; science- based decision-making on water and air quality
* MERCK
Increased funding for National Immunization Program; funding for Food and Drug Administration; patent reform legislation; opposition to drug importation
* ALLSTATE INSURANCE
Legislation related to "black box" recorders on new automobiles; the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act of 2007; Damaged Vehicle Information Act; Passenger Vehicle Loss Disclosure Act
* VISA
Various legislation related to credit card issuer practices
* AMGEN
Drug safety; legislation related to pharmaceuticals, including the Patient Protection and Innovative Biologics Medicines Act of 2007
* NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS
Bankruptcy reforms to prevent foreclosures; tax incentives for renewable energy
* LILLY
Drug-importation issues; Medicare and Medicaid coverage and reimbursement issues; pharmaceutical regulations; tax issues; patent issues
* BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY
Rail Antitrust Enforcement Act; tax credits, rail capacity, rail infrastructure; Railroad Competition Improvement and Reauthorization Act
* MEDTRONIC
Patent reform; health-care related bills, including legislation related to safety of advanced medical devices, promotion of health information technology systems
* US BANK
Legislation reauthorizing New Markets Tax Credit
* ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND
Farm Bill provisions; other legislation affecting renewable fuels; freight rail issues
* FORD
Fuel-efficiency issues, climate-change issues; employee benefits, health care and pension issues; corporate governance and tax issues; arbitration rules
* ANHEUSER-BUSCH
Matters relating to the malt beverage industry; family entertainment; regulation of marine mammals, endangered species and wildlife; solid waste disposal issues; legislation affecting recycling deposits
* STATE FARM INSURANCE
Legislation that would remove antitrust exemptions and subject insurance industry to Federal Trade Commission regulation
M.E. Sprengelmeyer
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
No. 44 means a lot to Floyd Little
-
A Dozen on Denver
Sandra Dallas wrote 'Lennie's tavern' for our ongoing fiction series. Check it out!
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on today's events.
-
Broncos Game Action
Click for more game action photos from Invesco field.
-
2008 Race for the Cure
The 16th Annual Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
-
Presidential Elections
See how Colorado counties have voted through the years.
-
County election profiles
A look at how residents in each Colorado county may vote.
-
Peak Picks
Submit your fall foliage photos to our contest and vote on other submissions.
May 12, 2008
12:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hola writes:
Now that is a relevant article. Specific and detailed. Nicely done.
May 12, 2008
1:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
gethoht writes:
Disgusting, absolutely disgusting. The best thing the US could do to get out of the corporate oligarchy we're in is campaign finance reform. Publicly funded elections, public debates(not sponsored by corporations). Keep money out of politics. Millionaires and billionaires don't have the american public's best interest in mind, and we'll continue to keep screwing ourselves as long as we keep electing the wealthy into office.
May 12, 2008
7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
ImperialRome writes:
Public financing of campaigns will only lead to more extravagant spending by candidates; further, it will reward fringe candidates who will exploit the "level playing field" to get their extremist message out. Imagine a David Duke or Louis Farrakhan running for office, with an equal amount of advertising dollars as mainstream candidates.
The only real way to take the money out of politics is to limit the power and number of terms in office of the politicians. Start by eliminating Congressional earmarks and reducing Federal spending and the corporations will have very little need to chase after politicians with dollars.
May 12, 2008
7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mtn__Gator writes:
FOR SALE; US Government...no offer refused
May 12, 2008
8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Gene it's called bailouts and subsidies. Why don't you get some education before you blog?
May 12, 2008
8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Democrat fatcats accepting bribes for their "party" in Denver?
And this is news?
May 12, 2008
8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dhakala writes:
Somebody's got to pay for the convention and I don't see private citizens lining up to do it.
May 12, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
Something like 9 to 11 Billion in tax cuts were handed out to the oil industry this year while they were making record profits. Microsoft was the largest contributor on both sides in 2000 and the anti-trust case against them seemed to disappear after the election. Bush started talking about a recession the second he was in office and hosed consumer confidence and that has more to do with the bubble bursting than anything. Also Clinton used the money multiplier to strengthen our economy when he was in office and it isn’t magic but it apparently is too intelligent for the GOP to figure out. The GOP also got the tax break for the rich they wanted and it caused our money to plummet in value because it increased debt, this and the Iraq war have been a horrible combination that have left our currency worth less than Canada. Our money is now worth less than our socialist neighbors and everything from our fuel to our food is more expensive because of it. The sad part is that the stuff has pretty much stayed the same with normal inflation for everyone else it is just our currency that is becoming worthless under the Bush administration.
May 12, 2008
9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
LB writes:
You forgot that the US tax payers help pay for both conventions.
May 12, 2008
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
airbornebigfoot writes:
I always write-in my vote, for Mr Joe Walsh.
(a terrific guitarist).
but it's always some other millionaire who wins.
I would like to see more reporters quiz these so-called
down to earth presidential hopefuls on some real world things,
Like how much does a postage stamp cost?
or how much is a dozen eggs? or the cost of a loaf of bread.
If just one of them would answer correctly, it might sway my vote.
as it is, its just a millionaires club, and in reality,
no matter who wins, regular joes like most of us will never notice any real changes.
the economic problems facing America right now are from presidential platforms 10-15 years old anyway.
I just hope theres rioting in the streets when the convention hits town, and people are paying $7.00 a gallon for gas,
wheeeha!
May 12, 2008
9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
gene is giving us his best willful ignorance dance today, yet again on republican corporate welfare.
as far as corporate donations to the DNC...biz as usual. the difference between republicans and dems is the influence on policy decisions those corporations receive in return for the money.
the last 8 years has seen sweetheart deals for the insurance, credit card, pharma, healthcare, energy, timber and defense industries. they didn't set lobbying records for nothing.
May 12, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
"Tax cuts are not corporate welfare, or subsidy." They sure as heck are not good for our out of control deficit either. You can argue semantics Gene but giving 9 to 11 billion back to a company making record profits is just plain STUPID. It sure didn't help our economy or make them think twice about keeping gas prices low. If you want real corporate welfare you should look at the No Bid Contracts being handed out to Halliburton and Blackwater in Iraq. How do you lose a BILLION in cash and not be expected to account for it? I guess that is criminal negligence not welfare so you can still argue semantics Gene.
May 12, 2008
10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
New Barenaked Ladies song idea:
If I stole a billion dollars, if I stole a billion dollars
I would buy you an election, maybe for your friend John that's true
May 12, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
mojambo writes:
I guess the already world's highest corporate tax rate isn't high enough for this bunch.
And you wonder why jobs get shipped overseas.
May 12, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
What America really needs is an end to executive privilege. We are a country of laws and everyone needs to be accountable even after they leave office. A lot less BS would happen if this would change.
May 12, 2008
10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
jambo, jobs are getting shipped overseas by the millions because these corporations can pay a fraction of labor costs somewhere else.
May 12, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
mojambo writes:
labor is one component of the cost of doing business, and one of the many reasons businesses leave the states.
May 12, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
I have seen many jobs get sent to Canada and other countries because corporations don’t have to pay for healthcare because it’s nationalized and that makes them more competitive. I know just moving across the border to Canada costs 25% less for cooperate employees.
May 12, 2008
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
jambo i think it's plain to see that millions of jobs are being shipped overseas because us based companies can simply pay less for labor...not because of conspiracy theory about overtaxation in the us.
again, the real issue here is the amount of influence given to corporations by the respective major parties. do you believe that the republicans and democrats are equal in this regard?
May 12, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
mojambo writes:
See what the ultra conservative Charlie Rangle has to say about your "conspiracy theory"
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publicat...
May 12, 2008
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
mojambo writes:
oops - meant Rangel
May 12, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:
This might explain the favorable treatment from the Ritter administration in allowing the residential phone rate cap being lifted for Qwest in this year's legislative session.
May 12, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Obama is an elitist, and they all have money, so what's the point in trying to differentiate between the three candidates with that?
There's flaws in them all. Clinton's trying to shove national healthcare down our throats, and in Massachussetts it's a failure. They're hundreds of millions in debt in a short few years and are now asking the federal government to step in and bail them out. Bringing up examples of healthcare in other countries doesn't work. What's the income tax rate in Canada? From something I read a few years back, it was quite a bit higher than the tax rate in the U.S.! And there's Canadian citizens coming to the U.S. to get better access to healthcare that they'd have to wait months for in Canada. One of the biggest reasons healthcare costs are high here is found in mandated coverages. For example, women shouldn't have mandated coverage for prostate exams, and men shouldn't for cervical cancer.
Obama is nice in front of a crowd, but he has no substance. His idea of reigning in rising oil costs is just another tax and spend Democrat idea. Tax oil companies for rates of over $80 a barrel. The oil companies raise rates per barrel to make up for that increase, and ultimately it's passed onto consumers in higher gas prices. How does that help with rising gas costs? It only means we'll be paying higher per gallon prices.
McCain supports a form of amnesty for illegals, even though the overwhelming majority of Americans are against it. He voted for going to war, just like Hillary did, and Obama says he was against it but he wasn't in position to vote for or against it, so it's all talk. Who knows if it would've been different if he was actually in a position to know what everyone in Congress or the Senate knew when they voted. Hindsight is bliss.
Money shouldn't equate to access for candidates, but it's the politicians that can change that and they don't want to.
May 12, 2008
12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
fatheromalley writes:
Taxing corporations raises retail costs to everyone, so while you're "sticking it to the man", just realize the "man" is YOU..
Go ahead and seize profits of big oil, and see how the price goes... raise taxes on any industry you pay more.. realize this people... your price for ANYTHING, could go down by 25%-30% if you didn't tax corporations on production, income, employer matching funds, investments and capital gains.. you dear reader are taxed without choice on the same.. taxing success is stupid.. but it makes you 'FEEL' SOOO GOOD, RIGHT? STICK IT TO THE MAN, RIGHT? Yeah, riiiiight...
If you can get your mind around that, you might be able to get your mind around NOT punishing success! Now success is seen as some form of 'badness' that must be punished through higher taxes...already "the rich' pay over 50% of all income taxes, and the top 50% of earners pay 97% of all income tax liabilities.. fair? progressive? Why not tax consumption instead and take the monkey off all our backs including the Rich.. why not, they've done nothing wrong, but make better life decisions maybe..
Oil company record profits? Not if you are comparing percentage of profit to overhead.. stop refining, stop drilling, you get higher prices for crude.. to keep the ratio of profits to overhead consistant businesses will raise their retail price.. if one side of the "equal" sign goes up, the other will too.. it must!
I can't wait until in our foolishness we concentrate on CO2 emissions, bad mouth big oil as a corporate toadie and truly believe that the tax subsidies that GE Gets for wind turbines is somehow "better" and more honest, when in actuality all you've done is replace on corporate "toadie" with another..
Errr..what?
Like quoting CO2 emmisions, unless you give it "scale", raw numbers don't mean a thing.. someone says a car puts out so and so "tons" of CO2 a year.. as if that is saying something.. when in actuality the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in GIGATONS TO THE 10 POWER OF 23.. ERRRR...
To have your voice heard by your repesentative, join a GROUP, that group is your ticket in... same for corporations, they all have the right to access their representatives as you dear reader.. so what?
Hello, it's called, SPELL IT NOW.. R E P R E S E N T A T I V E -- G O V E R N M E N T..
WAAAAAA.. WAAAA.
www.fatheromalley.com
May 12, 2008
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
I would comment, but fatheromalley has said everything that needs to be said.
May 12, 2008
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
It does not address the fact that one of the main reasons that we get less for our money is because it is worth less internationally. IT’S THE DEFICIT STUPID. The more in debt the GOP runs us with the war and out of control spending the less our money is worth. Until we leave Iraq our money will be worth collectively about 300 Billion less a month. You can pay off the taxes with corporate money if you want but what we need is an end to the spending to keep a colonial grip on Iraq. McCain will not do that and neither will Hillary the only chance we have to end the conflict is Obama so you can argue about the taxes but the cause of the deficit is more important to address. In my book that means as little GOP as possible until we can recover.
May 12, 2008
2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
There's a lot more than the war that's causing the deficit. If you think Obama is going to decrease overall spending, then I don't even know what to say. Ending the war will not end the deficit. Not by a long shot.
May 12, 2008
2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i honestly still can't believe we have far right wing apologists trying to defend the fiscal policies of the last 8 years.
staggers the imagination.
must take a lot of "faith".
May 12, 2008
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
Let’s say Obama decides to give everyone health insurance and every family a Prius. That would only cost as much as two months in Iraq. IT’S THE DEFICIT STUPID!!! We are seeing inflation starting to run wild as our deficit increases. The only way to get a handle on this is to get out of Iraq. Go ask a Russian what happened in Afghanistan and what it did to their country.
May 12, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
JP1985 name one thing that is currently costing us more than Iraq.
May 12, 2008
3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
jay, speaking of faith: "The difference between republicans and dems is the influence on policy decisions those corporations receive in return for the money."
Oh really? And your PROOF? Or should I just take that statement 'on faith'? Now, pay attention please, notice I did not ask for anecdotal evidence; I asked for PROOF. Statistical, empirical proof. I guess the corporate sponsors for the Democrats are just stupid, huh? Spending all that money and getting less influence in return from the noble and uncorruptible Dems?
And I guess the big labor unions, the National Education Association, the American Bar Association, I guess they all contribute to the Dems out of a sense of altruism, not for influence.
You want to know the difference between Democrats and Republicans? Democrats are more self-righteous, more naive, and more inclined to expect the government to solve everyone's problem. Then they don't have to feel like they are personally responsible for doing anything other than support candidates who cynically pretend they can solve all the country's problems.
May 12, 2008
3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Political money hores are $25 MILLION short of what they need to pull off this fleecing of America.
Who will pay for their 4 day party?
May 12, 2008
4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
Who is defending the policies of the last 8 years? We're talking about Democrats taking money from the corporations they tell their constituents that they're being protected from. All of the sudden the people who are willing to call them on it are defending Bush econimic policies? Bush may have one half of the equation right (low taxes) but he's sure no conservative when it comes to spending.
And nobody ever said there was any ONE thing costing us more than Iraq, but that doesn't mean that the war is the only thing causing the deficit. Bush's refusal to veto spending bills (at least when there was a republican congress) caused the deficit. It's naive to think that ending the war will magically pull us out of the deficit. Do you really think Obama or Hillary are willing to cut spending that much? Probably not, they're just thinking of other ways to spend that money.
May 12, 2008
4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
Tbone-
When you start taxing something more, it increases the cost of doing business, which in turn raises the cost of the product. If the government starts taxing oil companies more, you're going to foot the bill at the pump.
May 12, 2008
4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
Tbone supply and demand is part of it but so is the value of the money you are using. The GOP has us so far in debt our money is becoming worthless. IT'S THE DEFICIT STUPID. Our money is declining in value about 300 billion collectively a month because of the failed Iraq policy. What happened to the GOP not being nation builders? Self determination will always rule. Do you think we would ever stop fighting if we were invaded? I don’t think it will ever end until we leave. Go watch Red Dawn or something if you need a clue about what we are doing.
May 12, 2008
4:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
davies, i never said that the dems didn't construct industry favoring legislation in return for corporate contributions.
if i did, by all means post the clip and i'll forever cry your pardon.
however, there is a difference between dems and rubs in the amount of corporate influence allowed to influence policy decisions.
as i mentioned before, insurance, credit card, pharma, healthcare, energy, timber and defense industries have all received very favorable treatment over the last 8 years of republican reign. i just don't see the same kind of reciprocation in the 90's.
i could be wrong, but what industries do you think saw the same kind of sweetheart deals under clinton?
May 12, 2008
5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Seabreezes writes:
I personally think it's funny that we cry shock and outrage that our government is for sale. It's always been like that, it's only NOW, with the proliferation of information at our disposal, that we understand the level to which we have sunk (or risen, depending on your point of view). We, as voters, have gotten exactly what we deserve, whether through apathy (not voting) or greed (yeah, stick it to the taxpayers, they won't notice).