It won't, according to U.S. PIRG:
***** Phantom Fixes: How The Shays-Meehan And McCain-Feingold Bills Would Not Have Curtailed Enron's And Arthur Andersen's Campaign Spending January 30, 2002
This report was written by Adam Lioz <alioz at pirg.org>, U.S. PIRG Democracy Advocate.
Download the report: <http://www.uspirg.org/reports/phantomfixes1_30_02.pdf>.
Summary Of Key Findings
Enron and Arthur Andersen have exerted significant influence on our political system in the past decade.
Enron and Arthur Andersen contributed a total of $11,171,062 to political campaigns since 1989.
Since 1997, the firms' lobbying expenditures dwarfed their campaign contributions. Enron has spent $7,575,000 on lobbying since 1997, nearly double its $3,845,299 in campaign contributions over the same period. Andersen spent $9,605,000 on lobbying, compared to $2,781,008 on campaigns over the same period.
Enron, Arthur Andersen, and their employees have helped to elect many public officials, using primarily hard money.
With one exception, the candidates in the 2000 election receiving the most money from Enron and Andersen outspent their opponents and won their elections.
Ninety-four percent of candidates that spent the most money won their 2000 congressional general elections.
More than 62% of Enron's and Andersen's combined contributions were made with "hard money"-funds regulated and limited by current campaign finance law.
More than 80% of the money raised by parties and candidates during the 2000 election cycle was "hard money."
Public officials elected with assistance from Enron and Arthur Andersen played significant roles in fostering the regulatory breakdown that led to the Enron collapse.
At least 73% of Kenneth Lay's contributions were to candidates running outside of his own congressional district.
The Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation would not have reduced Enron's or Andersen's ability to spend money on elections.
Through loopholes in the proposed laws and increases in individual hard money contribution limits, Enron, Arthur Andersen, and their employees would have been able to contribute exactly the same amount of money had Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold been law-and maintained an equal or greater influence on elections.
The Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold bills allow corporations like Enron to give $10,000 to state and local parties each year. Simply contributing $10,000 to each state party would have enabled Enron and Arthur Andersen to pump $7 million each into political campaigns since the 1990 election cycle-more than each chose to spend under current law.
Under Shays-Meehan's and McCain-Feingold's increased contribution limits, Kenneth and Linda Lay would have been able to give $975,000 in hard money alone since the 1990 election cycle. This is more than the $882,580 in combined hard and soft money that the couple has given over the same period.
Enron employees made $508,000 in $1,000 contributions since the 1990 elections cycle. Under McCain-Feingold's increased contribution limits, these wealthy executives could all double their contributions, increasing Enron's total individual contributions from $1,237,588 to $1,745,588.
Arthur Andersen's employees made $294,000 in $1,000 contributions since the 1990 election cycle. Andersen's individual contributions could rise from $1,947,064 to $2,241,064 under McCain-Feingold.
Almost half (46%) of the individual hard money contributed to candidates during the 2000 election cycle came at the $1,000 level.
Doubling contribution limits could increase the proportion of individual contributions coming at the highest level from 46% to 63% of individual hard money contributed to candidates.
<http://uspirg.org/uspirg.asp?id2=5220&id3=USPIRG&> ***** -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>