Page 78 - Freedom in the world_Neat

was spent on federal campaigns, an increase of more than 30 percent over the 2000
election cycle.20
As costs rise, candidates depend more and more on special interests to finance their
election bids, and the interest groups find ways to pay. Advocacy groups exploiting a
loophole in Section 527 of the tax code have been the most aggressive spenders in post-
BCRA campaigns. Furthermore, the BCRA appears to have strengthened the existing
advantages of incumbents by making it more difficult for challengers to raise
money.21 The law has done little to alter the public’s perception that elected officials use
their posts to benefit their biggest campaign donors.
Candidates themselves also appear more willing to bend campaign finance rules and
engage in potentially scandalous behavior to raise funds. In 1996, for instance, President
Clinton was criticized for using the White House’s famed Lincoln bedroom to raise money
for the Democratic Party. Guests invited to sleep there were contacted by DNC fundraisers
soon afterward. Fifty-one such guests made contributions of $100,000 or more in the
weeks after their stays.22 In 1997, it was revealed that the DNC may have unlawfully
accepted money from the Chinese government, and that Vice President Al Gore had
appeared at a Buddhist temple where campaign contributions were raised in violation of
rules that banned fundraising at religious institutions.
Unlike federal judges, who are expected to recuse themselves from cases that present an
apparent conflict of interest, members of Congress are not required to abstain from votes
on bills that raise such apparent conflicts. Lawmakers can also write measures that directly
benefit their biggest contributors, and they occasionally do so. Although such contributors
usually support candidates who would be ideologically inclined to champion their interests
with or without a donation, the contributions have a significant impact on election
outcomes and ultimately on legislative action. In addition to the high correlation that
researchers have repeatedly found between campaign contributions and voting
records,23 which in itself creates the appearance of unethical behavior, there are several
cases in which representatives appear to have voted against their own ideological
principles to benefit an interest group.
Representative Roy Blunt’s dealings with Jack Abramoff provide an example in which the
influence of a special interest is consistent with a lawmaker’s ideology as well as an
instance in which the two appear to be in conflict. Blunt, a Republican from Missouri, was
criticized in 2003 for endorsing three letters urging the interior secretary, Gale Norton, to
block construction of an Indian casino in Louisiana. The construction project was opposed
by Abramoff’s clients, and the lobbyist had contributed to Blunt’s PAC, but the lawmaker’s
actions were consistent with his moral objection to gambling. However, in 1999 Blunt
lobbied his colleagues in Congress to kill the proposed Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,
which would have effectively quashed the internet gambling industry in the United States.
The bill was opposed by Abramoff client eLottery.

Ethics Reform and Whistleblower Protection

In 2002, the U.S. Congress responded aggressively to calls for corporate accounting
reform following a spectacular wave of corruption scandals that began with the collapse of

Page 78 of 168