Candidates spar over influence, semantics of industry money

Politics » Matheson says there's no such thing as corporate contributions.

A brewing dispute over the role of "corporate money" in their impending primary election spilled over into a public radio debate Tuesday between Democratic congressional challenger Claudia Wright and Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah.

Wright has repeatedly pointed to Matheson's acceptance of campaign cash from the health care, pharmaceutical and oil industries as evidence of undue corporate influence in politics. Matheson, in response, has pointed out that federal law bars corporations from donating to federal campaigns.

"I think my opponent is confused" about the law, Matheson said when Wright again made the point Tuesday on KUER's "Radio West" show during a debate moderated by program host Doug Fabrizio. When people talk of corporate money in federal campaigns, he said, "That ain't the law. That can't happen."

Wright, though, used the "corporate" label in reference to political action committees that draw donations from employees and executives of allied companies. She noted that health care, pharmaceuticals and oil and gas PACs are Matheson's top contributors.

"I consider those corporations," she said. "I think corporate influence in our election system is systemic, practically."

So who's right? Linguistically, at least, it's Matheson.

"When [Wright] makes an accusation that says he's taking corporate money she's not correct, because that's illegal," Brigham Young University political scientist Quin Monson told The Salt Lake Tribune. "Technically, Matheson is correct."

But PACs do use their members' money to advance industry causes -- if not individual corporations -- in Congress.

"They're banding together for a reason, and the reason is they would like to see policy and regulations go in a certain direction," Monson said. "But that may not be why they're donating to Matheson."

Often industry PACs give to incumbents merely because they are incumbents and therefore likely to win, Monson said. Other times the money is a reward for a voting record that already aligns with the PAC.

Wright supports public funding of campaigns and an end to PAC contributions. It's a proposition that could require a constitutional amendment, because the Supreme Court has ruled campaign contributions are protected free speech.

She acknowledged she has accepted help from one PAC, Act Blue, whose website has coordinated donations, but said it is only a Democratic donation clearinghouse and not a group representing special interests.

Matheson defended his campaign contributions by saying he makes it clear to all donors that they aren't buying a vote. In making the point with specific cases, though, he shorthanded the donor list -- naming companies instead of executives, employees or PACs -- in the same way that he accused Wright of misconstruing contributions.

"EnergySolutions has given me money," he said. "I think everybody knows how I've dealt with that company over time. Credit card companies have given money. I voted for massive reform of the credit card industry."