Candidate-Donor Relationship is a Strong One
WASHINGTON – Everything, right down to the paper and the water in Democratic Rep. Michael Michaud’s legislative offices, is about unions.
Michaud is a 30-year labor union man, a paper mill worker and Maine credit union board member. He considers himself a blue-collar laborer. In his first few months in Congress, he co-sponsored legislation to increase the minimum wage and extend unemployment insurance benefits. He also signed letters opposing President Bush’s plan to stripping homeland security workers of their union protections.
And he makes sure the paper coming out of his printers and the water his staff members drink come from union sources.
Labor unions, conversely, know that they have a congressman on their side – which explains why union political action committees donated $301,500 to help Michaud beat Republican Kevin Raye in a close and competitive 2002 race, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which analyzes campaign contributions.
Michaud is “one of us,” said James Carson, president of the Maine Teamsters Union Local 340. “We were pretty excited to see if we could elect a union member to Congress,” he said. The union contributed $10,000 to Michaud’s campaign.
Labor PACs also raised $138,600, as reported on the Center for Responsive Politics’ Website, to help ensure nine-year House member Thomas Allen’s reelection over his Republican opponent, Steven Joyce, in 2002. Allen, an outspoken advocate of health- care reform and prescription-drug benefits – issues important to labor groups – listed the Laborers Union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the United Auto Workers and the National Association of Letter Carriers among his top contributors.
Members of Congress often vote in ways that please groups that give them such large amounts of money during campaign time. However, staff members say, money exercises less influence in these decisions than similarities in political philosophies.
“The Congressman always has the perspective that you can’t take a contribution from someone you can’t say no to,” said Peter Chandler, Michaud’s chief-of-staff. Fundraising, he said, “is an opportunity for people who support a campaign to invest in it. It’s doesn’t guarantee votes.”
As an example, Chandler said Michaud received $10,000 in campaign contributions from the Philip Morris Cos. Political Action Committee even though he voted against tobacco interests while serving in the state legislature in Maine. Michaud nevertheless had good working relationships with some officials from Philip Morris, now called the Altria Group Inc., Chandler said.
Especially in a first-time race, political affiliations become less important than the personal connections Chandler described. Of the $1,187,462 Michaud raised, a little less than half was from individual donors. The donations from PACs were unusually high for a first-time candidate, to a great extent because of strong support from labor.
Allen’s chief -of staff Jackie Potter said personal relationships were key during Allen’s first run for office in 1996. “He called every person he knew,” she said.
That year, almost 75 percent of Allen’s contributions were from individuals, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. This time around, for Allen, 57 percent of donations were from individuals, while 42 percent came from PACs.
In the 2002 race, however, potential donors could simply look at the congressman’s voting record and decide whether he stood with them or against them.
Often, donors decide which Congress members to give money to based on committee assignments.
“When you get elected, you pursue your interests,” Potter said. “These things coincide with what other people are interested in.” Allen’s interests, particularly his battle for affordable health care and prescription-drug benefits, as well as his efforts in energy and education reform, coincide with those of many PACs.
Potter recalled one vote that upset many labor unions – and donors. In 2000, Allen voted to establish permanent normal trade relations with China. Many labor groups, fearing the effect of foreign competition and cheap overseas labor on domestic manufacturing, lobbied hard to kill the bill.
Despite their disappointment on that vote, union leaders continued to support Allen. “He had built up a strong enough relationship” with the organizations he went against, she said.
The Teamsters had been especially vociferous during the fight against knocking down trade barriers to China, she said. But the Teamsters’ Carson said that though Allen and the group have “had our differences, by and large he’s been on our team.”
Financial support didn’t buy the Teamsters a vote. However, Carson said, the real advantage of donations comes in the form of access.
“It doesn’t get you the vote. But I really believe you have a receptive ear – that they’ll listen and give good consideration,” he said.
Ultimately, money rarely enters into a decision-making process, Chandler said. The Maine delegation – “independent thinkers,” according to Chandler – is especially apt to make decisions against donor or party lines.
“The delegation mixes it up,” he said. “They vote the way they think is right.”
Published in The Kennebec Journal and The Morning Sentinel, in Maine.
