October, 2020
Washington and Berlin – On Tuesday, October 13th, the Lichtblick Kino in Berlin will show (to a masked and socially distanced audience) the film "Meet the Donors," by Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of the Speaker of the House.
The film will also be available to a Zoom audience at 8 PM Berlin time, 2 PM EDT, with a discussion to follow. I will be one of the discussants. The topic is the influence of donor money in elections and government.
The film was made in 2016, so it is now a little dated. If anything, the need for campaign finance reform has only increased in the past four years. Money to try to buy elections has become more plentiful, what with a 2017 tax cut for individuals and corporations in the large-donor class. Enforcement of existing federal election laws has also waned because the Federal Election Commission has often lacked a quorum to act in the past four years.
A candidate for president who made campaign finance reform his centerpiece issue for 2020, Governor Steve Bullock of Montana, found insufficient support to keep his effort alive and dropped out of the race early. Other issues pushed his agenda aside.
The film spends considerable time humanizing donors, giving the impression that they are mostly harmless old men set in their ways, convinced that their giving is patriotic and their motives pure. It later shows why this is often not the case, but sometimes first impressions are lasting.
There are many mentions of "access," which is what donors get for their money, and a lot of denial that they get anything more. The film inevitably comes around to lobbyists, all smooth but not oily, who explain innocently what they do for big donors. It's all legitimate, of course, and often bipartisan. Just ask Haley Barbour, a prime specimen of the breed.
Former Congressman Tom Downey explains from his experience how it all works, using an example of a bankruptcy bill that passed so as to favor banks at the expense of consumers, especially student loan borrowers. Donor access made passage of the bill a forgone conclusion. Consumers don't have the same kind of access that bankers do, he points out.* But we knew that.
Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that opened the political contribution floodgates for corporations, is noted in the film, but almost in passing.
At its conclusion, "Meet the Donors" raises the question of whether we now have a democracy or a plutocracy. Good question, but it comes too late, as the filmmakers have already pulled most of their punches.
As a person who has worked several decades in government and politics, and witnessed personally from many angles (including courtrooms**) how donor money corrupts, I found the film too tepid. Perhaps the lead filmmaker's famous name was more of a hindrance than help.
As a political scientist, I also know something about how money in politics is treated in academe. Too often the subject is ignored, unless, of course, it is how to get in on it. Some institutions even have courses that teach dubious practices, as a way to make the most of the situation. GWU has a separate, thriving degree program called Political Management, as opposed to its sleepier program in Political Science.
Maybe other viewers of "Meet the Donors" will see the film differently, but it left me disappointed.
________________________________________
* The example Downey uses to illustrate access is more troubling because it also involves corruption. Some of that access was being paid for by financial institutions' false claims against taxpayers in the student loan program.
** Dan Moldea (2020), Money, Politics, and Corruption in U.S. Higher Education: The Stories of Whistleblowers. moldea.com.
