Does money win elections? Most people would say yes, and they would have sufficient evidence to show as proof. For example, my district representative, Bill Pascrell Jr. (the Democratic Representative from New Jersey's 5th congressional district) has re-won his congressional seat eight times since 2000 is landslide victories. In each of these elections though, he out raised his competitors 3:1 (at the least), and outspent the competition by at least the same margin. The money raised by Pascrell in these recent 8 election ranges from about $1-2.8 million, with donations of $100,000 or more coming from multiple industries and sectors. After receiving such large contributions, it's no surprise that Pascrell's actions in the legislature appear to be supportive of the interests of such industries.
Pascrell, who was elected to his first term in the House in 1996, is currently a member of the House Committee on the Budget and the House Committee on Ways and Means, sitting on the subcommittees of Health and Trade. It seems that interests of bills resolutions voted on or sponsored by Pascrell is similar to the list of his current top donors (provided by OpenSecrets.org) showing that the industries from which Pascrell receives the most money include Health Professionals, Lawyers/Law Firms, Hospitals/Nursing Homes, Insurance, and several unions including transportation, construction, and labor.
Through his sponsorship and cosponsorship of bills during his tenure as one of New Jersey's representatives and his position on the House's Subcommittees of Health and Trade, it is clear that he actively promotes bills that take on issues of health and taxation/finance (these two issues combined are the areas of nearly half of his sponsored/cosponsored bills). Interestingly enough the health and business/finance sectors account for around $700,000 of his donations (a little less than half of his total amount raised). In 2014 and 2015, Pascrell has been sponsor of a good deal resolutions that aim to temporarily reduce or extend the reduction of duties on various, specific items; while sponsoring bills aimed at improving concussion treatment, re-authorizing programs to deal with the research and treatment of other brain injuries, and authorizing grants for the support of in-home care givers.
However, even though his voting record does correspond with his list of top donors, the donations he receives aren't necessarily the reasons for his voting. It could be the opposite. Perhaps the reason Pascrell receives such large contributions from several unions and the insurance sector is because he is a proponent or sponsoring bill to help provide job security, insurance coverage, and unemployment compensation, not the other way around.
Even though most of Pascrell's votes seemed to be votes hat would be popular among the districts constituents (even though they did correspond to donations made by each respective sector), several votes seemed to stick out to me in particular. One of which was his vote in favor of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling. This is a bill that received a decent amount of media attention while it was being voted on in July for being in favor of relaxed GMO labeling regulations, and many of these sources accused Monsanto Co. of lobbying heavily for it passing in the House. It was surprising to see an 'aye' from Pascrell on this resolution and others regarding chemical regulations in farming and food production because many people from my area seem to be against it, and the agribusiness industry accounts for such a small portion of his donations.
Overall, I found that even if Rep. Pascrell is influenced by the money he receives from donors, he still finds a way to vote in a way that appears to be very supportive of the interests of his constituents.
http://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/478/bill-pascrell-jr#.ViGdJItKu2w
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00000751&type=I
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bill_pascrell/400309
2 comments:
When it comes to his vote on the GMO Labeling, I would certainly agree that it seems very surprising your representative would vote in favor of relaxed GMO labeling for agribusinesses. Without much contribution from agricultural organizations, and without constituents asking him to vote in this way, could it be possible that this vote was in an effort to try and lure in some further contributions from agricultural organizations? Perhaps Pascrell is worried about not having enough campaign funds in the future? It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense for him to vote that way, especially since most of the Democratic party is opposed to relaxed GMO labeling as a whole. Then again, maybe this is Pascrell trying to vote in a way that makes him seem more moderate in order to gain support from some voters who lean conservatively.
After reading your post I can agree that your representative and others like him are influenced by the power of money in that regardless of where it comes from all donations are needed in order to keep his power. But what if Parscell had the financial resources like that of presidential candidate Donald Trump? As crazy as he is he has the resources to finance his entire campaign and as a result his goals and objectives are rightly his and not bought by corperate intrests or super pacs. What would the outcome be if candidates didn't take any outside funds? Would views on such political debates such as fossil fuels and immigration be different thanks to the lack of corperate influence?
Post a Comment