home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: london@rain.org ()
- Subject: Review of MONEY TALKS by Dan Clawson et al.
- Date: 8 Feb 1995 22:36:28 GMT
-
- Book Review
- -----------
-
- MONEY TALKS
- Corporate PACs and Political Influence
- By Dan Clawson, Alan Neustadtl, and Denise Scott
- Basic Books, 1993, 272 pp., $25 cloth
-
-
- Will Rogers's oft-quoted phrase "the best Congress money can buy" seems
- particularly apt after reading this study of corporate political action
- committees (PACs) and their influence in Washington. Unlike so many
- polemics against the abuses of government, however, this book is sober,
- comprehensive, well-researched, and ─ amazingly ─ told in large part in
- the words of PAC directors themselves. Based on extensive interviews (all
- quoted anonymously, of course), the book provides a fascinating,
- behind-the-scenes glimpse of how PACs work, what they seek to gain from
- their contributions, and how they lobby their "special" interests.
-
- Since PAC contributions are considered "gifts" rather than bribes, the key
- is to create a sense of obligation and thereby win "access" to
- legislators, the authors point out. Once the door is open, corporations
- can then persuade members of Congress "to make 'minor' changes in a bill,"
- that may end up saving them literally billions of dollars. Ernest & Julio
- Gallo, for instance, succeeded in reducing their taxes by $27 million
- through "contributions" of just $325,000. The book is full of astonishing
- examples like this one. The chapter on campaign finance reform is
- especially timely in light of the Clinton administration's latest
- proposals. The authors are not very optimistic about either the
- likelihood or the effectiveness of reform, however. After all, special
- interests, by definition, are antithetical to the general interest. No
- reform can overcome the inherent contradictions between economics and
- politics, they argue. At best, reform can lead to further reform.
-
- Since the authors are scholars rather than Washington insiders (think
- tankers, journalists, policy analysts, etc.), there is some
- ideological bias at work and a certain lack of realism in places. But
- the authors are open about it and quite justified considering that
- their biggest audience is likely to be on college campuses, not
- Capitol Hill.
-
- Scott London * london@rain.org
-
-
-
-