Make Michigan's political money machine more transparent

LANSING, Mich. - When politicians run for office, they like to claim they are unbossed and unbought.

"Aren't you tired of special interests and lobbyists telling you how to vote? Politicians who won't tell you the truth?" says U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra in a new TV ad. He is one of five candidates vying for the Republican nomination for governor in Tuesday's Michigan primary.

But Mr. Hoekstra not only talks with special interests, in some cases he takes their money - as do most of his rivals.

Take one of the hottest issues in the Michigan Legislature: the battle over whether to build an internationally owned bridge across the Detroit River. Most statewide officials of both parties support the Detroit River International Crossing, or DRIC.

So do most corporate leaders. But the project is stalled in the Michigan Senate because of the opposition of Manuel Moroun, owner of the Ambassador Bridge.

Mr. Hoekstra says he doesn't like the DRIC proposal and thinks any new bridge should be a "public-private partnership." But he is less quick to say that he's accepted at least $13,600 in campaign contributions from Mr. Moroun.

In fact, five of the seven candidates for governor are against DRIC, even though the government of Canada wants the project so much it says it would pay Michigan's share of the costs.

Each of the five candidates who opposes DRIC has accepted money from Mr. Moroun. Republican state Sen. Tom George got $3,400. Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard, another Republican, got more than $45,000.

House Speaker Andy Dillon, a Democrat who supports DRIC, didn't get a cent from Mr. Moroun. Nor did Rick Snyder, the Ann Arbor venture capitalist who is seeking the GOP nomination; he leans toward support for a new bridge.

If this causes you to raise an eyebrow, it should.

"Corporations don't give money for selfless reasons," said Rich Robinson, who runs the nonpartisan, nonprofit Michigan Campaign Finance Network, which is concerned about the influence of money in state politics. "They are looking for policy outcomes on issues they care about."

Direct bribery is, of course, illegal. But candidates know that those who give expect something in return. Cases like that of Mr. Moroun don't bother Mr. Robinson much, because they are somewhat in the open. Anyone can go to the Michigan campaign finance group's Web site and follow who has openly given to whom.

What worries Mr. Robinson are the vast amounts spent on stealth campaigns. In this last week before the primary, hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on slick ads attacking candidates, and nobody legally has the right to know who is footing the bill.

Under Michigan law, "issue-oriented" groups are exempt from any state or federal regulation of how much money they can raise or spend. Most have bland names, such as "Americans for Job Security," or "Fix Lansing, Get Michigan Back to Work."

These groups often have agendas. Known as 527s, they have only one restriction. They cannot endorse or tell voters to vote against a candidate. Directly, that is. But they accomplish that goal in other ways.

Two years ago, one of these groups paid for an ad that charged that Clifford Taylor, then Michigan Supreme Court chief justice, fell asleep on the bench. There is no proof that happened, but most think the ad was a major factor in his defeat.

Another group, Americans for Job Security, is running an ad campaign that portrays Mr. Hoekstra as a tax-and-spend liberal. He is not.

Mr. Robinson believes voters should be able to find out who is bankrolling these ads. That's something the Legislature could do by passing a bill.

Some people are confused, he noted, because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January that there could be no limits on corporate political spending.

"But they specifically said that the states have every right to demand disclosure," Mr. Robinson said.

Unfortunately, many people and corporate interests prefer anonymity. They also give to state legislative campaigns, and the Michigan Senate has refused to pass a bill that would require disclosure.

Both parties could encourage a more transparent system. But they haven't done that. Nor, by and large, have the media.

The new governor and Legislature could do much to make Michigan's political money machine more transparent. The question is: Will citizens ever press whoever is elected to do so?

Jack Lessenberry, a member of the journalism faculty at Wayne State University in Detroit and The Blade's ombudsman, writes on issues and people in Michigan.

Contact him at: omblade@aol.com