This is where we became suspicious.  The US Chamber represents business interests that would actually benefit if their prediction is correct.  The cost of fines to business for not offering healthcare are less than the cost of providing healthcare.  So isn’t this a good thing for the bottom lines of their member companies?  Actually, not necessarily.  Fortunately US corporations do not make decisions solely on the basis of what fines they will face for chosing other paths.  Otherwise we would face disasters as far as the environment, workers’ rights, and consumer protection.  Instead companies have to be concerned about their reputations, attacking the best workers, and being generally competitive.  Thus they are motivated by more positive factors than just the threat of fines.

So why then is the Chamber up with ads?  Could they really be concerned that people would lose their insurance?  Due to the above, likely not.  If the above was true, we would also be hearing from those who would care, like actual consumer protection agencies, lobbying groups who protect workers, and unions.  The real answer as to why they are up with these political attack ads  becomes clear when we look at the major contributors to these ads through the Chamber.  While the Chamber can keep their donations quiet for the most part – a weakness in our campaign finance system that allows groups like them not to disclose - it is well known that chemical, oil and gas, and health insurance companies are major contributors to this cause and therefore to these political ads.  But why?  Well, here goes our fox in the henhouse explanation: These companies may be against the healthcare law, such as is the case with health insurers who are forced to have higher quality standards and not to exclude people who are already sick.  They may also just want to see Democrats lose, and since perhaps their own reason (e.g. not wanting regulations that reduce global warming) does not have traction with the public like healthcare reform does, they have jumped on this handy bandwagon.

This is why it is refreshing when a politician seems to buck a trend that looks like a foxes in the henhouse situation.  In this case, we see examples of Republicans siding with pro-environment sides of bills despite what that might do to their own funding or popularity with party leaders.  For example:

- Rep. Nan Hayworth republican of New York supported the EPA in early 2011 on an appropriations bill amendment that would have otherwise barred the agency from writing climate rules. She also supported NOAA establishing a climate change service, which most Republicans voted against.

- Rep. Steve LaTourette republican of Ohio in 2011 voted to allow the Interior Department to put a moratorium on uranium mining around the Grand Canyon.

- Rep. Fred Upton and Rep. Ed Whitfield, both republicans, voted to preserve the Endangered Species Act.

While we wish this could be a more exhaustive list, it is still refreshing to see at least some policians bucking a foxes trend!

Sadly, since their job has become more important, the FEC has been experiencing partisan gridlock that has paralyzed them from doing their work.  The way the FEC is constructed is that there are two Democrats and two Republicans on the panel, and for any vote to actually carry weight it has to be at least 4-2.  Predictably, most votes in the FEC on issues related to campaign finance have been 3-3.  The GOP appointed members have been unofficially charged with ensuring that true monitoring of the behavior of Super PACs does not happen, and gridlock is a means to that end.

There is a solution, since five of the people who sit on the FEC currently have expired terms.  President Obama could appoint new members to the commission, but in order to break the 3-3 gridlock he would likely have to find a way to bypass the usual tradition of allowing the Senate opposition Party leader to pick his or her nominees since the current leader, Mitch McConnell is opposed to campaign finance laws.

For now we are stuck with a Federal Election Commission that has three members who do not likely believe in what their own commission was charged with, and this is exactly what we at Foxes tend to notice and lament

1. Super PACs accept donations from groups of individuals, and the group itself may not be bound by disclosure laws.  So, for example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce might give to a Super PAC and that is what would be disclosed by law.  However, the businesses who gave to the U.S. Chamber in the first place, and to what degree each business gave, might not be fully known.  Thus the industries and actual companies that would be asking for pay back if their chosen candidate won would be hard to know.

2. Super PACs accept donations from individuals who may be fronting for companies but these connections may not be obvious.  Some wealthy individuals may have myriad connections in industry, so it may be hard to trace their intentions when they give, or the payback they themselves might be receiving after they make their donation.  If these connections were known, the nature of the fox in the henhouse would be more clear.

For these reasons it may become hard to know exactly which foxes have been released into the henhouse after our elections, and what payback will be necessary.  What is known, based on history, is that this influx of money makes corruption more likely, especially because disclosure is not occuring.

Super PACs have suddenly become a huge source of fundraising for elections, particularly for Republicans.  They might help elect a particular candidate to congress or the presidency.  In doing so, the Super PACs will let a lot of foxes into the henhouse.  These elected officials will need to please the major donors to the Super PAC – or fear that the powerful group will support someone else when it is re-election time!

So, who are these potential foxes in the henhouse?  Who are we seeing as the big donors to these large and powerful Republican Super PACs?  In the first disclosure we see home builders and land developers, oil and gas companies, and chemical companies.  These corporations would benefit from reductions in environmental regulations, loosening of business oversight, and greater subsidies to their industries.  Once in the henhouse, they would certainly remind the elected official of the support they gave – especially given that in many cases we’re seeing multiples of seven figure donations from some in these industries to Super PACs.  Would the elected official dare ignore these requests from these foxes in the henhouse if the Super PAC was going to instrumental in getting him or her re-elected?

It will be important to follow the results of the election in terms of watching the henhouse foxes these Super PACs create – though it’s too bad that our system allows this kind of potential corruption in the first place.

Enter the power of the corporation with deep pockets.  Big oil and chemical companies are in this fight, and have admitted to spending money on proving the science the shows that global warming is not happening.  This, in itself, is certainly their right in a capitalist democracy.  And also by itself it is a good explanation of why the debate is so close – since the corporations likely have a huge amount of money to pool together on their PR campaigns against climate change while the government scientists have very limited funding and most of it is directed toward the actual experimentation and study, not PR.  So why is this a Foxes in the Henhouse proposition?

Recent evidence points to the likelihood that big oil and others who would benefit significantly financially if global warming was not addressed have funded scientists who have not used appropriate scientific methods, such as not allowing others to peer review their results (i.e. having independent scientists mak sure that they actually did what they said they did in a sound way to reach their conclusions).  These companies have even funded scientists who have merely stated their opinions and theories about global warming with no solid scientific experimental evidence at all.  Thus the debate is not fair – one side is charged with using appropriate scientific methods to prove something that is actually quite tricky to prove, while the other side is able to skirt these methods when stating its case.  This Foxes problem is tilting the debate about global warming unfairly, and could have consequences for all of us down the road.

In reality, however, the system is not exactly working as intended.  This is no surprise given that big money in politics is almost always hard to trace, and large donors can almost always find ways to make their contributions secret.  In this case, corporate interests are benefiting from loose rules with regard to timing – yes they will eventually be outed, but the rules allow for some delay, often until after the election when no one is paying attention.  And even when they do disclose, if there is information that is missing or inaccurate, the weakness of the deadlocked FEC, whose foxes in the henhouse situation is covered in more detail on our “Political Appointees” page, means that there is a good chance nothing will happen in the way of punishment anyway.

So, why the Supreme Court ruling seemed on its surface to require full disclosure – since it was predicated on the idea of free speech – the dissenters on the court were proven correct that many big donors would find their way around disclosure and the potential for the corruption that campaign finance laws were designed to control would be strong.

Where we run into a fox in the henhouse proposition, however, is when the donor comes first, and the issue position is a result.  Issue positions and opinions should not be bought or they will end up going to the highest bidder and not necessarily be what’s best for the country.  If a donor can buy a political position of a candidate, then the candidate is beholden to that position, even if events or circumstances change that might warrant a change in position.  This may all seem obvious, but unfortunately the truth is that high-end donors, and especially high-end donors who pool together often end up manipulating a candidate’s political views.

With the rise in 527 and other outside group spending after the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizen’s United, this issue has become even more complicated.  On the one hand, with many wealthy donors not giving directly to candidates, their ability to directly influence the candidate later – to ask for payback – is a bit more limited.  However, with the dramatic increase in the power of 527s, politicians will fear that if they turn their back on these groups and their donors they will feel their wrath the next time around.

Our point here is that political donations should be a support and a thank you to the candidate most likely to support one’s beliefs and ideals, not a bribe designed to get undue influence and favor after he or she is elected.

Most political polls are showing that Rick Perry has excited more of the republican party base.  When his record and political issue statements are matched against the rest of the candidate field, he seems to be a great fit for the republican and conservative voting base.  However, those same polls show a significant difference between how Mr. Perry and Mr. Romney fare against the incumbent democrat, President Obama with Mr. Romney faring better in a general election.

Here is where we have the potential, and actual evidence of henhouse foxes:

- Established, mainstream republicans seem to be subtly attacking Rick Perry for fear that Mr. Perry could fail in the general election

- Less subtle and more direct attacks of Mr. Perry are also beginning by republicans, but in many cases they are not admitting it’s about electability for fear of alienating the base

- Even Democrats are getting into the swing, actually staying silent in Mr. Perry even though he is the front-runner, and attacking Mr. Romney.

This twist on the theme will be interesting to watch if the political polls hold this fall.  Will conservatives decide to be more open about their fears, or will henhouse foxes dominate and try to undermine Mr. Perry behind the scenes?

Imagine a scenario where instead of political leaders being on the committee, who are relying on campaign contributions from those individuals and groups who have a stake in the outcome of the deficit subcommittee’s recommendations, the two political parties each picked economists and financial experts to make recommendations.  Imagine if these new members did not have to worry about the effect of their decisions on campaign contributions next election cycle, and only had to think about what might work best?  And imagine the power of having people who actually have dedicated their lives to these issues sitting in a room working out a plan, and not having politicians who may or may not have some knowledge about economics and finance.

It will never happen, since our foxes in the henhouse in congress want to maintain control of the process, and likely want to get credit for the outcome (or toss blame if the outcome turns sour).  Hardened political views and re-election dynamics will thus likely trump real economic theory.  The power of the foxes in the henhouse dynamic is startling, as is the arrogance that goes along with it.