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 Ä amazingly Ä 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