Molly Ivins is off and blathering hysterically on another tirade against the environmental policies of the Bush administration. To hear Molly tell it, the President plans to pillage the earth as quickly as possible and take as many of us with as he can. She also brings up an excellent example of the failed logic of campaign finance reforms.
You can read the full Molly Ivins Piece(and I mean piece) here or enjoy this excerpt along with my comments:
Boy, we are marching backwards on the environment at a truly impressive pace. Between the Senate and the Bush administration, we are advancing to the rear, double time. The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, fuel efficiency standards, toxic waste -- this is literally sickening stuff.
All part of GW's master plan to poison as many of his own people as possible of course. Note Molly's cute use of the word literal. My she is clever!
Last week, the Senate voted 62 to 38 to postpone, yet again, increasing the fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. According to the Sierra Club, the average fuel economy of cars sold last year was 20.4 miles per gallon, the lowest since 1980. The failed fuel efficiency proposal could have saved the country up to 1 million barrels of oil by 2016 -- as much as the United States currently imports from Iraq and Kuwait.
The Sierra Club is of course an unbiased, objective source of information. No mention of the costs to the auto industry of meeting new efficiency standards or the increased accident deaths likely to result.
You will doubtlessly be less than amazed to learn that the auto industry spent heavily to defeat any improvement in fuel efficiency. According to Public Campaign -- a campaign finance reform group -- on average, the 62 senators who voted with the industry received $18,000 from auto companies. The 38 senators who wanted stronger standards got a measly $5,900. Since 1989, the auto companies have given $9.9 million to federal candidates and parties. I know, it's not new, but it does matter.
Of course we all know that because the auto companies gave more dough to the sixty two senators who voted against the bill they are obviously in the back pocket of the auto industry and their votes have been bought. Right? This is the type of naive conclusion that has led to the current campaign reform bill being passed. Just because you know that A(auto companies make campaign donations) and C(senators vote against bill that auto industry opposes) exist, it does not allow you to conclude that B(senators votes were bought) does.
Instead of looking at it from the point of money buying votes how about votes attracting money? If you're an auto industry association are you likely to contribute to campaigns of politicians who in the past have shown themselves to be anti-business and pro-regulation such as Paul Wellstone or Teddy Kennedy? Most likely not. Does this mean that you have "bought" the votes of other politicians whom you have decided to contribute to? In most cases no. Without the Pro the Quid and the Quo don't make it so.
