Even Better Than Campaign Cash

Chad Outler writes about a recent case of dueling letters from senators who favor and oppose ethanol subsidies:

The following charts compare campaign contributions that pro-subsidy senators such as Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) have received from entities associated with key ethanol stakeholders with contributions to anti-ethanol subsidy senators such as Feinstein. The charts include contributions from Archer Daniels Midland and Monsanto, the largest ethanol producer in the US and the world's largest seed provider. A contribution search at MAPLight.org returned a variety of corn processing and biofuel companies who contributed to the senators, who make up the balance of the charts. Contributions from the categories provided, "Alternative energy products & services" and "wheat, corn, soybeans and cash grain" have been vetted to eliminate contributors who are not directly related to the corn, ethanol and biofuel industries. Category codes provided by the Center for Responsive Politics.

To me this seems like a terrible example to use if you want to persuade people of the corrupting influence of money. Look at Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken. They're not getting much of this special interest cash. And yet, they love ethanol. Presumably this is because of something having to do with Minnesota. The Senators from Iowa are soaking up corn cash, but that's not the reason they take a pro-corn line. They're pro-corn because corn is king in Iowa. Corn interests back Iowa politicians because it's in their interest for Iowa politicians to have as much clout as possible.

It's important to understand this issue correctly, because we need the right institutional change. The big issue here is that a lot of the aspects of our committee system tend to exacerbate problems of interest group capture when we should try to design it to mitigate the problems.