One reporter's notebook
Idaho campaign finance -- sometimes the donors lose
It seems an article of faith among journalists and among cynics that campaign contributions lead to laws that, rather than benefit the public at large, they benefit major corporations.
But my recent anaylsis of Idaho campaign contributions to individual candidates suggests that such isn't always the case.
I'll concede at the outset that my findings are anecdotes, on the surface, but I think they are worthwhile anyway.
In the 2002 election cycle, Idaho's biggest out-of-state contributor to individual political campaigns was tobacco maker Philip Morris. Philip Morris -- which has now changed its name to Altria corporation, note how altruistic they sound -- also runs Kraft Foods. Its donations totaled more than $13,000 across the state to candidates. Now, Altria is always near many places where it might to influence legislation. Indeed, tracking influence at all is very difficult, even seeing the benefits of one bill over the other can be hard to see on one corporation. However, without question, the biggest tobacco bill in that session was the indoor smoking bill sponsored by Rexburg Sen. Brent Hill. Sen. Hill's bill, controversial as it was, made it much more difficult to smoke in restaurants. This passed over the implicit objections of tobacco companies.
Similarly, in the 2004 session, the number one out-of-state donor is Union Pacific Railroad, which gave more than $20,000 to candidates across the state. One bill, the safe routes to school bill, suggested that the state pick up the tab for some railroad crossing construction. Given that a railroad crossing protects a railroad from lawsuits, it really is in their interest to have these even without government subsidy. There may be very good public policy reasons to such a bill -- I am not wishing to argue that here. But, at last check, this bill had died in committee, and railroads didn't get what I perceive that they wanted.
(Safe routes to school? What kind of name is that? As a reporter, such names should strike fear in us. After all, who could oppose such a cause as safe routes to school? The name makes it harder to vote against a provision, even if it is against, truthfully, the broader public interest.)
Accordingly, another top donor, another loss. Kudos to the Legislature, as I read it. Still, let's keep an eye on this as reporters-- vigilantly.
Of course, my views should not be construed to represent anything other than my own views. They are NOT necessarily the views of my department, my university or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the sponsoring institution of my university.