The theme runs shrilly through rhetoric of Democratic presidential contenders in the US. It's the 2004 version of stand-up-for-the-little-guy politics. President George W. Bush, the Democrats proclaim, is too beholden to "special interests," especially corporations. Each candidate vows to rescue the nation from this plight.
That Bush receives electoral and financial support from American business is indisputable. It's a stretch, however, to suggest that such manifestations of alliance threaten democracy more than do the votes and money Democrats disproportionately receive from unions and trial lawyers. Businesses have legitimate political interests—many relating to what unions and trial lawyers persuade politicians to do—and have the right to pursue them. This is politics. So is propaganda, such as the following campaign utterances of the leading Democratic candidates:
- George W. Bush has built a government of the special interests, for the special interests, and by the special interests. I'm going to create a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.—Gen. Wesley Clark, retired, US Army.
- Our executive branch has become a private club for large corporate interests.—Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.
- Time after time, President Bush and the Republican leadership put the interests of lobbyists and campaign contributions above the interests of regular people.—Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
- From the moment I take office, I will stand up to the special interests and stand with hard-working families so that we can give America back its future and its ideals.—Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
- I will argue today that George W. Bush has compromised the people's trust in their government and confidence in their economy by handing over public policy to private interests.—Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.
The theme is clear. Less so is whether any of the candidates would act on it if presented the opportunity. Such an opportunity is at hand. Any Democratic candidate can show he's serious about the supposedly sinister influence of special interests by renouncing support for ethanol in gasoline.
Ethanol wouldn't enter fuel streams at anywhere near current rates without a federal tax subsidy amounting to 52¢/gal. Yet energy legislation struggling in Congress would more than double the size of the fuel market for the substance, which enjoys protections against foreign competition.
These and other political favors for an uncompetitive gasoline additive developed for three reasons. Politicians can't resist heaping gifts on agriculture, as they showed in 2002 when they enacted a farm bill loaded with subsidies worth an astonishing $180 billion over 10 years. Ethanol supporters persist with the demonstrably false assertion that their favorite fuel additive fights air pollution. And Archer Daniels Midland Corp., the dominant US grain distiller and premier beneficiary of anything that raises demand for ethanol, is a notoriously lavish political contributor.
ADM ranks 70th in political giving since 1989 on a list of top organizational donors compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Political contributions associated with ADM during 1989-2004 total $7.64 million.
It's no secret that political favors are crucial to ADM's business. A 1995 study by James Bovard of the libertarian Cato Institute said that at least 43% of ADM's profits came from products "heavily subsidized or protected" by the government. Bovard estimated that each dollar of ADM's profits on ethanol cost taxpayers $30.
Despite forgone tax revenue and extra costs to consumers, all the would-be Democratic candidates complaining about corporate interests support ethanol in gasoline, as does Bush. According to a survey by the proethanol Sustainable Energy Coalition, all of them support mandated levels of renewable substances—ethanol—in vehicle fuel. All support increases in federal help for biomass fuels. All except Lieberman support continuation of ethanol's federal tax subsidy.
The US provides no better example of governmental favors linked to corporate largess. Subsidies and market mandates for ethanol help ADM, lesser distillers, and grain farmers and hurt everyone else. The benefits flow most heavily to one of the country's top political donors, the giving by which, says CRP, "leans Republican."
Regarding the political influence of special interests, then, is there a Democratic candidate who means what he says? If not, the whole group should find a new theme with which to pummel Bush. This one looks hypocritical.