Politics & Policy

The Money in Politics Dems Don’t Mind

Corporations can throw untold millions at immigration reform without complaint.

How do special-interest donors get away with spending upward of $100 million on a cause most Americans oppose?

When that happens, don’t pundits rail against Big Business and the influence of “money in politics”? Liberals redouble their efforts to overturn Citizens United, right?

Not if it’s the immigration debate. In almost any other context, the Left would be up in arms to stop a legislative push backed by “corporations,” “billionaires,” and “special interests” on such a massive scale.

#ad#Instead, they boast that “literally everyone supports immigration reform.” More accurately, Representative John Yarmuth (D., Ky.) observed, “There is no money on the other side of the issue. There is nobody out there ready to spend $100 million against this.”

Within the 39 percent minority of Americans who think immigration reform should be a priority in 2014 (compared with roughly 100 percent of political pundits), there is no shortage of powerful players willing to spend millions to make it a reality. Opponents of comprehensive reform have . . . Heritage Action, a handful of tea-party groups, and not much else.

The deep pockets of the coalition backing immigration reform are pretty impressive.

Given the diffuse nature of the groups involved, and the prevalence of undisclosed donations and indirect spending — things that tend to annoy liberals — it’s hard to put a precise number on how much has been spent in support of immigration reform since the idea resurfaced in 2013. The total number is probably well over $100 million.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the most prominent institutional backers of the Gang of Eight legislation, spent more than $50 million on lobbying last year. They were joined by the AFL-CIO and SEIU, unlikely allies for the Chamber but similarly profligate when it comes to politics.

Kochophobes and other advocates of campaign-finance reform didn’t protest when top Republican donors, along with individual billionaires such as Mark Zuckerberg and Michael Bloomberg, launched their own lobbying efforts, or when the CEOs of corporations such as Walmart, Boeing, Microsoft, Disney, Marriott, General Electric, McDonald’s, Hewlett-Packard, Alcoa, and AT&T; the entire Business Roundtable; and even News Corp’s Rupert Murdoch joined those efforts.

#page#Zuckerberg alone has reportedly raised some $50 million from Silicon Valley donors for his FWD.us organization, which was started specifically to lobby for immigration reform and has already spent millions on ads in support of a comprehensive bill. As Politico reported in January, “many of the biggest spenders” backing immigration reform are “wealthy individuals” like Bloomberg and Zuckerberg. Meanwhile, Washington insiders “point to immigration reform as an area where there will be a lot of K Street spending” in 2014. And the same people who cheered when candidate Obama promised to end the influence of “corporate lobbyists” in Washington couldn’t care less.

The media, too, have been largely uninterested in whether these powerful interests might be motivated by anything other than an earnest desire for compassionate treatment of illegal immigrants. Concerns about the big companies urging Congress to pass immigration reform even as they lay off thousands of employees have, for the most part, been dismissed by Thought Leaders as irrelevant to the immigration debate.  

#ad#The very same companies supporting immigration reform are routinely denounced by liberals as profit-mad monsters for opposing things like a minimum-raise increase. But not, apparently, for backing a bill that the Congressional Budget Office predicts would reduce wages over the next decade as millions of low-skilled immigrants arrive to compete for jobs. Instead, the coverage has been far more credulous, along the lines of this NBC report: “Zuckerberg told the lawmakers the donors gave not because of reasons related to the high-tech industry, ‘they gave for humanitarian reasons,’ [Representative] Yarmuth said.”

Liberals complain that “corporations have hijacked our politics.” Except when they agree with you, in which case they are afforded the same treatment as wealthy Democratic donors — people who, according to the Washington Post, “see their donations more in the spirit of philanthropy than investment.”

As long as there is a sea of corporate money backing immigration reform, those on the left are reluctant to resume complaining, in the words of candidate Obama his public-financing pledge in the 2008 election, that our “system is broken.”

They’re saving it for when the Koch brothers (unabashed supporters of immigration reform, by the way) buy the election in 2014.

— Andrew Stiles is a political reporter for National Review Online.

Andrew Stiles — Andrew Stiles is a political reporter for National Review Online. He previously worked at the Washington Free Beacon, and was an intern at The Hill newspaper. Stiles is a 2009 ...

Most Popular

Elections

Put Up or Shut Up on These Accusations, Hillary

Look, one 2016 candidate being prone to wild and baseless accusations is enough. Appearing on Obama campaign manager David Plouffe’s podcast, Hillary Clinton suggested that 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein was a “Russian asset,” that Republicans and Russians were promoting the Green Party, and ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Elizabeth Warren Is Not Honest

If you want to run for office, political consultants will hammer away at one point: Tell stories. People respond to stories. We’ve been a story-telling species since our fur-clad ancestors gathered around campfires. Don’t cite statistics. No one can remember statistics. Make it human. Make it relatable. ... Read More
National Review

Farewell

Today is my last day at National Review. It's an incredibly bittersweet moment. While I've only worked full-time since May, 2015, I've contributed posts and pieces for over fifteen years. NR was the first national platform to publish my work, and now -- thousands of posts and more than a million words later -- I ... Read More
Economy & Business

Andrew Yang, Snake Oil Salesman

Andrew Yang, the tech entrepreneur and gadfly, has definitely cleared the bar for a successful cause candidate. Not only has he exceeded expectations for his polling and fundraising, not only has he developed a cult following, not only has he got people talking about his signature idea, the universal basic ... Read More
Culture

Feminists Have Turned on Pornography

Since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the feminist movement has sought to condemn traditional sexual ethics as repressive, misogynistic, and intolerant. As the 2010s come to a close, it might be fair to say that mainstream culture has reached the logical endpoint of this philosophy. Whereas older Americans ... Read More
White House

The Impeachment Defense That Doesn’t Work

If we’ve learned anything from the last couple of weeks, it’s that the “perfect phone call” defense of Trump and Ukraine doesn’t work. As Andy and I discussed on his podcast this week, the “perfect” defense allows the Democrats to score easy points by establishing that people in the administration ... Read More
Elections

Democrats Think They Can Win without You

A  few days ago, Ericka Anderson, an old friend of National Review, popped up in the pages of the New York Times lamenting that “the Democratic presidential field neglects abundant pools of potential Democrat converts, leaving persuadable audiences — like independents and Trump-averse, anti-abortion ... Read More
PC Culture

Defiant Dave Chappelle

When Dave Chappelle’s Netflix special Sticks & Stones came out in August, the overwhelming response from critics was that it was offensive, unacceptable garbage. Inkoo Kang of Slate declared that Chappelle’s “jokes make you wince.” Garrett Martin, in the online magazine Paste, maintained that the ... Read More