Corporate Sponsorship

Fahrenkopf and Kirk, who control the CPD, don't just profit from Corporate America as partners of corporate law firms and directors of corporations. They are also registered lobbyists for multinational corporations, and their income as well as their clients' income is directly affected by who gets elected. Kirk has collected $120,000 for lobbying on behalf of Hoechst Marion Roussel, a German pharmaceutical company.

Kirk's lobbying practice, however, pales in comparison to that of his CPD co-chair. As president of the American Gaming Association (AGA), Frank Fahrenkopf is the lead advocate for the nation's $54-billion gambling industry. He earns $800,000 a year lobbying on behalf of 18 corporations directly involved in the hotel/casino industry -- ITT, Hilton -- as well as most of the major investment banking firms -- Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch. His advocacy consists of directing enormous financial contributions to major party candidates and saturating the media and academic world with "expert" testimony extolling gambling's "many benefits." "We're not going to apologize for trying to influence political elections," said Fahrenkopf.

What is really troubling about Kirk and Fahrenkopf's roles as corporate lobbyists has little to do with ideological incentives to exclude third-party candidates disparaging of corporate power. That Public Citizen, a civic organization founded by Ralph Nader, released reports in 2000 severely criticizing the pharmaceutical and gambling lobbies certainly didn't help Nader's chances of getting in the presidential debates. Nevertheless, Kirk and Fahrenkopf would just as easily exclude a proponent of the pharmaceutical and gambling industries if that candidate posed a threat to the major parties. "They're not really interested in stifling us because of the issues we're raising, but simply because we're a threat to the two parties at all," said Ron Crickenberger, former political director of the Libertarian Party.

The real concern is what Kirk and Fahrenkopf's lobbying practices reveal about their civic priorities and conceptions of democracy. Their lobbying demonstrates a willingness to protect corporate profits at the expense of the voters' wishes. It shouldn't come as a surprise, therefore, that the co-chairs of the CPD protect major party interests at the expense of the voters' wishes.

The CPD's intimate relationship with corporate boardrooms has also directly impacted the financing and character of the presidential debates. The debates are now primarily funded through corporate contributions. The tobacco giant Phillip Morris was a sponsor in 1992 and 1996. Anheuser-Busch sponsored debates in its hometown of St. Louis in 1992, 2000 and 2004.

Under the auspices of the CPD, debate sites have become corporate carnivals, where sponsoring corporations market their products and propaganda to influential journalists and politicians. In 1992, after providing some $250,000 in contributions to the CPD, cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris won the right to hang a large banner that was visible during post-debate interviews. For the third 2000 presidential debate, Anheuser-Busch, which contributed $550,000 to the CPD, set up several information booths to distribute glossy pamphlets touting the benefits of consuming beer, denouncing "unfair" beer taxes and calling on the government to "avoid interfering" with beer drinking. Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank described his experience at the first 2000 presidential debate:

The whole campus is closed -- (ostensibly) to thwart terrorists, more likely to thwart Nader and Buchanan. Nader gets kicked out of the debate audience, even though he got himself a ticket from a student. He's threatening lawsuits. But I'm not worried about such things. I am inside the debate area, and I am delighted to find an Anheuser Busch refreshment tent, where there is beer flowing, snacks, Budweiser girls in red sweaters, the baseball playoffs on television, ping pong and fusbol.

Most importantly, by donating to the CPD, corporations make tax-deductible contributions that benefit both major parties simultaneously. Donations to the nonpartisan LWV were primarily considered civic charity. Corporations, however, perceive donations to the bipartisan CPD to be bipartisan political contributions. Nancy Neuman, former president of the League of Women Voters, explained:

One of the big differences between us and the commission was that the commission could easily raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions. They did it very quickly in 1988. Even though I would go to some corporations, I would be lucky to get $5,000. Why? Because under the commission's sponsorship, this is another soft-money deal. It is a way to show your support for the parties because, of course, it is a bipartisan commission and a bipartisan contribution. There was nothing in it for corporations when they made a contribution to the League. Not a quid pro quo. That's not the case with the commission.