Name: Secret Corporate Cash Funds Presidential Debates
Brand: shadowproof.com
SKU: shadowproof-com-4188
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Secret Corporate Cash Funds Presidential Debates

preview

The role of corporate funding for debates is a little-known reality of presidential elections. Most people are aware of the way that corporations use direct donations to political parties, candidates, and their associated political action committees to curry favor and buy access. Few know debates themselves—ostensibly civic events meant to serve an educational purpose for voters—provide another one of those avenues.In 1978, academics Marilyn Jackson-Beeck and Robert MeadowAn analysis of hundreds of archival documents and records obtained through multiple Freedom of Information Act requests reveal the way in which debate sponsors and hosts rely heavily, by necessity and design, on corporate money to bring the debates to the public. In the process, the debates become yet another influence avenue for corporations.Upon appeal, the College reneged on the initial denial, but then said it would cost over $3,000 to obtain the documents.&nbsp;SimilarlySuffice to say, these examples are not among the records obtained by Shadowproof.Still from CSPAN broadcast of 2008 presidential debate.There is the money disclosed which funds the debates, and then there is the money raised by debate hosts by mandate.Today, hosts of this money on their own and show proof of the ability to do so in the applications they submit to CPD as a hosting prerequisite.&nbsp;This is separate from the money CPD raises to support its general operations budget, , much of which .Documents from the University of Massachusetts-Boston University Archives and Special Collections put the latter on full display.In 2000, the CPD required debate hosts to pay&nbsp; “to defray direct and indirect costs and expenses of producing the Debate,” although the entire debate was budgeted at . A little over two weeks before&nbsp;the debate, an internal memo warned there would be a , conservatively speaking, “if no more pledges [were] forthcoming.”A year earlier, local leaders embarked on an intense fundraising drive to cover this clearly overwhelming cost.Thomas Menino, then-Mayor of Boston, the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and then-Republican Gov. Paul Cellucci held a breakfast in November 1999 with 35 “corporate and civic leaders,” including of various Boston 100 companies, ultimately $547,500 of their $600,000&nbsp;goal. They were in this effort by the president and CEO of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce.The debate fundraising committee’s&nbsp; reveals dozens of corporate names, from financial firms, banks, and insurance companies to household names like Gillette, Dunkin Donuts, and Anheuser-Busch. The &nbsp;includes these corporations.Despite the intense fundraising drive by the hosts, the CPD’s mentality was that it was wholly in charge. As outlined in an to staff in early 2000: “Think of the debate as a condo. We own and prep everything up to and including the walls/floors/ceilings. The CPD ‘owns’ the inside.”The 2008 debate cycle offered more of the same. Documents obtained from University of Mississippi show the school utilized recently-retired U.S. Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), who became a immediately .&nbsp;Lott helped attract corporate donations for the debate.“I know that you know how to approach the leaders of the various companies, and we rely on your good judgment in making those contacts,” wrote&nbsp;Ole Miss’ then-Chancellor Robert Khayat to Lott in a June 2008 letter. “There will be special events for the donors, and there will be significant signage and recognition of each of them.”A marked “Confidential Draft” and titled “Presidential Debate Sponsorship Opportunities” shows corporate donors to the debate were offered a listing in the debate program, a commemorative wall plaque, recognition in all Ole Miss publications, an invitation to a “special dinner and program the night of the debate,” and “other opportunities as negotiated.”Social opportunities, like dinners, matter because many politicians, political consultants, and other politically-connected VIPs attend presidential debates and help make the debate something much more elaborate&nbsp;than what’s beamed on television and streamed on the internet.Other documents from Ole Miss show it asked for money from the likes of and others such as Philip Morris, Coca-Cola, Apple, Nissan, Comcast and Raytheon. Companies like FedEx, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Southern Company, Chevron and Entergy all ended up as Ole Miss as well.Documents obtained from the University of Mississippi show by 2008 theAs multiple stakeholders wrote in letters urging the CPD to hold a debate in New York’s Rockland Community College last year,Still from CSPAN broadcast of 2012 presidential debate.By August 13, 1976, it had sent 586 letters and made 41 phone calls to a combination of corporations, charitable foundations (by far the largest portion) and individualsEven before the FEC’s decision, 27 corporations and foundations turned down the League’s entreaties, andSince then, corporate donations directly to the CPD haveIn fact, Stephen Lambright, Anheuser-Busch’s former general counsel and executive, made the company’s goals clear in a 1996 interview, where he said the company’s aim was to “maintain relationships.”Reporting contributed by Itai Vardi.Shadowproof is a financially independent news organization. All of our funding comes from small donations made by readers like you.We use your donations to hire freelance writers and cover our operating costs. Monthly membership subscriptions give us the stability we need to make plans while ensuring our organization does not depend on grants or major funders. If you like what you read, support our writers with a donation today.&nbsp;

The role of corporate funding for debates is a little-known reality of presidential elections. Most people are aware of the way that corporations use direct donations to political parties, candidates, and their associated political action committees to curry favor and buy access. Few know debates themselves—ostensibly civic events meant to serve an educational purpose for voters—provide another one of those avenues.In 1978, academics Marilyn Jackson-Beeck and Robert MeadowAn analysis of hundreds of archival documents and records obtained through multiple Freedom of Information Act requests...

public

Steve Horn

March-eh-teach. Writer @Jacobin, co-host @1of200podcast. Faves =/= agree. Author of Yesterday's Man: the Case Against Joe Biden

Branko Marcetic

Reader-supported journalism dedicated to exposing abuses of power in business and government. Founded by @kgosztola & @bsonenstein.

Secret Corporate Cash Funds Presidential Debates

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS