Once in office, politicians have at their best interest those who got them elected; sadly in America that is seen as wealth giving access, politicians may feel more beholden to large donor who has maxed out in each cycle than to someone who sent in ten dollars.
Corporations are now people, with free speech rights–and making campaign donations is part of that. Lobbyists remind politicians who got them into office. And therein lies the problem addressed in Pricele$$:
Politicians must go to large donors such as the oil and gas industry, agrichemical companies, health insurers, and Wall Street…you know…the type of companies they’re supposed to be regulating. Likened by one seasoned Senator to the ancient art of whoring, America’s electoral system forces elected representatives, in both parties, to rely on special interests for their job security.
And that’s wrong. It’s unfair to their constituents, to their parties and platforms. Steve Cowan explores this first through looking at how our food and water are affected by subsidies and agrichem companies, who make huge donation to politicians, politicians who make the policies that keep these companies in business, politicians who vote for the subsidies. One example: Organic farm development receives less than .5% of the 8.5 billion dollar agriculture budget. The devastation caused by chemical fertilizers and pesticides could be stopped by farmers transitioning to organic which produces as well or better than chem-farming. But that wouldn’t benefit agrichem companies, who are donors to the politicians who vote on funding all forms of farming, organic and chemical.
Petroleum, oil and gas companies have their own agenda(s), their own lobbyists and donor bases. America’s dependence on fuel fuels wars, while certain corporations benefit from the wars themselves. We, the American people suffer–suffer the loss of your troops, of our reputation abroad and our economy at home.
Is there a solution for this aspect of the puzzle? Shifting to renewable fuel sources. But what is the benefit for the oil and gas companies, and my extension the politicians they fund?
Pricele$$ brings up a solution: Campaign reform, and showing us why, giving us a look at OpenSecrets.org, a non- partisan guide to Mammon’s hands in American politics. If all politicians were held to Clean Campaign practices like Arizona state elected officials, then “friends” wouldn’t be made and ideology formed through expensive fund raising dinners and office visits, but rather by meeting and serving constituents.
Granted, politicians and their handlers could argue that elections make money and spread the wealth: Ads are bought, commercials are made, fliers and posters and banners are printed, staff are hired; there’s all those ballrooms, and conventions centers, travel; and all employees who are hired in the stages of campaigns along each whistle stop.
And corporations would fret about what to do, as well–How would they get rid off the money they set aside for lobbying and donations? One suggestion in Pricele$$ for the latter problem is to have any corporation that does business with the government donation to a fund which will be divided between all candidates to level the playing field. And thus, campaigns remain funded, it doesn’t cost the taxpayers, and all the spending on campaigning can continue without all that pesky fund raising.



85 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Before we start, just a couple quick notes: Please refresh your browser every minute or so to see new comments, questions and answers. To reply to specific comment, hit the reply button underneath it and then type away. Always after a comment or question hit “send comment.”
Please stay on topic–in this case discussing Pricele$$ with filmmaker Cameron Harrison, the high cost (in so many ways) of campaigning, special interests, lobbyists, the by-products of current campaign law, energy and farm policies, war, and campaign reform.
If you want to jump in about in anything else about tonight’s ample topics please find a post elsewhere on FDL to do so. Thank you.
Please be respectful of our guests and of each other. And yeah, I tpye badly…
Hello and welcome to Firedoglake Movie Night. And thank you all for being here tonight!
Thanks Lisa! Steve Cowan here is really the director of the film. I can just take credit to co-producing and editing.
Cameron, I really enjoyed Pricele$$. It was very eye-opening. How long were you filming?
Steve Cowan here…the film was 4+ years in the making
I joined up with Steve about a year ago. Half the film was done then, and we’ve worked pretty closely together since finishing it up.
Hi Steve!
I liked how you presented two major issues food/agriculture and energy as huge examples of the lobbying/campaign funding issues and presented differents solutions. gave me a lot to think about.
glad it works…we were going to add a third case study, healthcare, but after Sicko it seemed uneeded
The lack of support for organic farming is really painful. Without reliance on agrichem our need for petrochemicals and their byproducts would drop.
Yeah, there’s a lot to think about in the film. In some ways it’s really three documentaries in one.
I haven’t seen any calculations, but my guess is that corps buying pols is the highest return they can make on capital. After all, by contributing a few million dollars, or even hundreds of millions of dollars, they earn scores (or more) of billions of profits thru USG giveaways.
Vanity candidates like Whitman & Fiorina are a diff story.
It works really well, hit on a variety of interests. everytime I get another campaign flier I wish there was someway to stop the spending madness.
the farm bill is a complicated thing that funnels a lot of money to certain industries within the agribizz sector…hence the strong resistance to shifting subsidies to organic
Yeah, we definitely look into that with the film. Give me a second, and I can pull some numbers from it.
You can see those campaign contributions pouring into the Gulf of Mexico from space. All that fertilizer that pours out of the Mississippi River has created a big dead zone.
That is so appalling! It seems so logical to have a 1st yr transition label, all the way through Organic. And training inspectors, developing testing measures all employs people, etc. It’s a growth sector for everyone BUT agrichem.
shudder and weep…
just 1 per cent of cropland in the US is organic and interestingly, just 1 per cent of farm bill subsidies go toward organic.
“From 2002-2008 the fossil fuel industry contributed over 86 million dollars in campaign contributions. Meanwhile 70 billion dollars were given in subsidies* to those industries.” Quite a take!
*depending on your definition of subsidies.
My math was bad, will correct…
Yes, we also touch on the deadzone created by these chemicals. It’s scary the domino effect that humans can create with seemingly simple legislation.
It stuns me that the companies, farmers, legislators ignore the connection…
The Farm Bill is especially frightening because people like me, who don’t live in farmland at all, really don’t think about where the food comes from at all. Until I joined this project I had no clue how dysfunctional the farm bill really was.
It takes films like Food, Inc. and (hopefully) ours to make alot of people aware on these subjects.
is this live chat still a-live? if so, how many actually saw the film?
Well, as one interviewee in our film says “If you’re in the system, it just works to well, you’re not going to change it.” Of course the companies and legislators gaining from it ignore it… many farmers don’t though, and that’s why they spoke to us and are proponents of a public financed system.
Only the trailer so far, but I’d like to see it.
I’ve seen it Steve! So…so…so many times. ;)
We’d like you to see it as well! That’s the stage we’re in now…trying to find distribution.
I do know what a trial that is. Did you open the film at a festival?
What is your screening schedule like?
PBS Independent Lens is considering. So is CBC and BBC. We’ve sent the edit to MSNBC but no response yet. Also to HBO.
Not yet…though have submitted to a few. Hoping for Sundance, won’t hear back from them for a couple months. Big Sky Film Festival looks promising.
But yeah, most TV channels like HBO and MSNBC won’t even consider you until you’ve won a fest or two.
Though we do have some special sneak preview screenings here in Portland if anyone is in the area!
Around and around it goes. Did you guys get any financing or did you have to dig into your own pockets?
the film was screened for former members of Congress and they liked it a lot (both sides of the aisle). it’s showing at conferences here and there.
we raised production money from private foundations mostly. if PBS picks it up we’ll likely need to raise more money for a national promotion campaign.
Sounds like you’ve been around documentary filmmaking before…
Yeah, we’re really hoping the film can reach across political parties and engage folks who might normally be turned off by something like “publicly financed elections.”
It really is a “democracy” issue and not a “democrats” issue.
So Steve, I’ve got a questions. Since I never made it out to any of the interviews myself (you chaining me to the editing suite here)…who was the most interesting interview?
A bit. A few years back I emptied my already sad bank account on an alternative energy film. We had a “tentative deal” with the Danes, then some Italians but then the banking system collapsed.
Strong trailer. We’re following your discussion.
Yes, please tell stories. From the trailer it looks like you did a lot of interviews with the “little people” of congress. Interesting angle, humanizing.
i hope pbs picks it up. what was the most difficult part of making this movie?
most interesting interview…probably with Eric Massa but then his world caved in and the interview became…less usable.
Ouch! The lengths we’ll go to for our art and our messages, eh?
That collapse actually nearly derailed this film too. Steve had only half the film in the can when funding went dry. He was able to make a trailer with that, though and managed to pull some more funding in, just enough to finish. That was the point I came on board.
What do you mean exactly by the “little people” of congress? The freshmen?
Also, not sure if people have followed the link back to our page yet, but there’s a second trailer there that shows a little more footage (though not quite as “fun” as this teaser).
http://www.habitatmedia.org/priceless.html
most difficult part of making the movie, to be honest, is raising the money to make it. the film took a to of research because, as Cameron noted, it’s really 3 docs-in-one. getting certain members of Congress to see us was not easy. dealing with uptight security personnel around the Capitol also not easy.
The people that typically get left out of media discussions of campaign finance. They don’t get on the round-table or talking head shows, and if a big network were to do a piece it would generally focus on the known players like McCain or Frank or Pelosi et al.
Which member was the most difficult to access?
Yeah, I only got to watch the footage from Eric Massa’s interview…but that was great. He was a real character and boy could he form a powerful soundbite.
We had actually integrated him pretty deeply in the film when an ethics scandal about him arose, causing him to resign. Couldn’t really still use his interview. We definitely lost some punch with him.
Have you thought of doing something with the unusable Massa interview?
Yeah, I really enjoyed hearing some of the personal stories from the freshman members (and even just some of the more personable veterans). Politicians are so often put under a magnifying glass that we forget that (most of them) are just humans trying their best.
But since we knew that the film would be screened on Capitol Hill, we definately made an effort to humanize the members. You can’t call someone a crook, and them ask them to change their ways. And for most of them, they really are good people stuck in a bad system.
Well, a few were so difficult to access that we never got to them. We actually had a lot of luck with Members of the House…most of the ones we wanted to talk to got back to us. Senators were definitely more tricky.
He didn’t make it into the film, but we had to pull some strings with friends to sit down with Barney Frank.
Another person we really wanted to talk to was Rep. John Larson, one of the sponsors of the Fair Elections Now Act. He wanted to talk to us too, but it seemed everytime we were in Washington was during a super hectic week.
I guess trying to pass world-changing Climate Legislation is more important than sitting down with a documentary crew. :)
the Massa interview sits in a can here. dunno what to do with it. would not want to have it used against him in any way cuz he seemed like a good guy but then again he never groped me. as an ex-military officer he was very blunt about the money-chase game in DC. seems to have deep appreciation for what the Founders intended. great interview.
As for the members that we knew we’d be painting as the “bad guys”…they were surprisingly eager to get to. One of our associate producers is quite a smooth talker, and with the cunning use of flirtation, managed to make it into most of their secretaries’ day planners.
The infamous Dana Rorebacher(sp?) was the one loose cannon we could never nail down.
asking members of congress about campaign money makes them very uncomfortable. the issue is radioactive there. the frenzy for campaign cash is so huge now. everyone seems to know something’s way-broken.
But few are willing to admit it.
The lobbyists seemed happy to participate. In the longer trailer I loved the juxtopositioning of the guy loading chemicals into a farm truck then the John Deere tractor sitting on the lobbyist’s desk in Washington.
Another issue I thought was interesting, besides the corrupting influence of campaign contributions was the time involved in congress members’ search for these contributions. This is what most members wanted to talk about.
Here we are paying them to do a job with our tax money, and they spend, easily a third of their time dialing for dollars instead of researching the issues.
Today Rush Limbaugh was railing against earmarks as a way to get bills passed and he said Republicans did it too. From Rush that’s saying something. Maybe he’s sensing his listernship’s disgust at campaign spending and fincial trade offs…
It’s interesting that many of the lobbyists are actually in favor of public financing. They’d rather spend their time lobbying than raising funds for these Members. I guess they got into the business to convince with schmoozing rather than contributions.
However, they have no qualms about using the system while it’s in place and legal, even though they disagree with it on some level.
our approach to lobbyists was to grin a lot and let them know that we were covering all sides of the story. the fertilizer lobbyist we ran into by sheer luck while he and his PAC was merrily setting up “harvest party” reception for members of Congress in the House ag committeee chamber.
That was surreal!
How will they get paid if we go to a public system? I imagine there would be fewer lobbyists and it would be a much lower paying gig.
Did they address that part of it? Or did you get the sense that they were so comfortable in the knowledge that public financing would never happen anyway that they could afford to say the crowd-pleasing thing?
I agree, when I first saw Steve’s rough cut, that fertilizer institute party being held in the room where farm policy is made, I knew we had an eye-opening doc! It just doesn’t seem like that could be legal.
the Fair Election Now Act proposes a voluntary system—like in Arizona, members can opt to run on public funds or run the usual way, on special interest money with the help of lobbyists. over half the AZ legislature won office on public funds, so yeah, it must mean less work for lobbyists…but there are still plenty of them scurrying about and waiting to jump on staffers and members!
Over an 800 times return. Don’t think there’s any other ‘investment’ that would ‘yield’ so much. Thanks.
Well, lobbyists primary trade is information. Different companies will still pay them to be their representative to the Lawmakers…to present their best face and their reason why things should be in their favor. Though, you’re right, there will probably be need for fewer if the money factor is removed.
As for their reasons for support, it kind of make sense. As it is now, they’re called by members constantly asking them to arrange fundraisers. I’m sure that gets annoying.
Plus lobbyists are just hired guns. By the rules of capitalism, they’re just loyal to whoever pays them…so they don’t care one way or the other how the legislation goes…as long as their employers think they’re doing the best job they can. (of course, that’s all removing personal beliefs and ideologies form the mix)
Thanks for doing the math! :)
yeah with a return like that, the shootin’ match is up for sale. exxon & chevron give millions but indeed reap billions. and it’s not just the subsidies but the indirect stuff like occupying the Persian Gulf. They don’t pay a dime or get their legs blown off or come home half-crazy.
You got that right.
Also, most of the lobbyists who were willing to sit down and talk with us, did so because they were for public financing. I’m sure there’s plenty of dirtbags who enjoy the money aspect that knew well enough to not talk.
Well, with only 5 minutes left I want to say thanks to Lisa for watching the flick and hosting this. And thanks to everyone else for taking an interest and for the excellent questions. We hope you’ll be able to watch the whole thing very soon.
If any one knows any television executives, put in a good word! ;)
Did you get a chance to talk to any lobbyists fighting against the oil interests?
You can find out more about the current Public funding bill at:
http://www.publicampaign.org/
http://youstreet.org/
(many of these sites’ organizers are in our film)
We spoke to Steve Kretzman of Oil Change International…dunno if he actively lobbies on the hill. he is a good guy and smart.
yes yes thanks to all participants! nice getting smart probes. thanks Lisa and firedoglake…
Yeah, again only knowing him through the interview footage, he came off as really sincere, down-to-earth-and super smart!
ANd thanks ofr the opensecrets,org info, that was indeed mind blowing!
Firepups, Steve, Cameron,thank you all so much. Pleasure to have you here and I learned lot from this film! Especially how ot make a difference! Thanks
Yeah, I was just about to promote them too! Fantastic site! Very useful to keep tabs on all our Members. They can run, but they can’t hide…their contribution intake!
Thanks for hosting this and making us aware of the film. Hope you guys find a distributor soon.
Wow! I was late to the party here, but this has been my big issue for a while not. Unless and until the money is taken out of the equation, the results will never change.
Nice post
watertiger is upstairs!
Late Night: Your Communications Department is So Lame That…