If you're one of those who equate the worlds of Washington and Hollywood -- the standard joke: "Politics is show business for ugly people" -- then a presidential inauguration is the Oscars, Golden Globes and Emmy Awards combined, right down to the parties, balls, extravagant wardrobes and goody bags stuffed with swag.
Just check out the online "57th Presidential Inauguration Store," peddling more tchotchkes than the vendors outside a Justin Bieber concert -- from shot glasses, T-shirts and tube socks to an Obama portrait by the artist Chuck Close and a $7500 set of official medallions.
The company behind this marketing behemoth -- as it was during the 2012 campaign, when at times it appeared the Obama team was running a big box store rather than a presidential race -- is Financial Innovations, Inc., which also happens to be one of a handful of corporations donating money to underwrite this year's inaugural celebration. Its owner, Democratic fundraiser Mark Weiner, was an Obama bundler, raising as much as half a million dollars for the president's re-election. According to Matea Gold at the Los Angeles Times, analyzing data from the Federal Election Commission, Financial Innovations "was paid more than $15.7 million by two Obama campaign committees to produce and mail campaign merchandise."
Four years ago, the committee for President Obama's first swearing-in proudly announced that no corporate cash would be accepted for the festivities, presenting the decision as "a commitment to change business as usual in Washington." Nor was money taken from registered lobbyists and foreign agents, non-U.S. citizens or political action committees. What's more, individual contributions were capped at $50,000.
This year, there's a new attitude and a new push for dollars -- the goal is set at $50 million. The rules against lobbyists, PACs and non-citizens are still in effect, but now, contributions of as much as a million are being solicited from individuals as well as businesses (although you're banned from giving if you received taxpayer bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- TARP -- and haven't paid it back!).
"Sources close to the planning said the decision was born out of pragmatism," Politico reported in December. There were just a few weeks post-election "to raise tens of millions of dollars to celebrate a victory that Democratic supporters already spent hundreds of millions of dollars to win thanks to the rise of unlimited outside money in campaigns this year." Nonetheless, as the Associated Press noted, "The changes are part of a continuing erosion of Obama's pledge to keep donors and special interests at arm's length of his presidency."
According to records released by the official Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC), so far, fewer than a thousand individuals and only eight corporations have contributed money for the long weekend of parties, balls and ceremonies (On January 17, ExxonMobil announced that it, too, was chipping in, to the tune of $250,000.)
Most of these companies have ties to the federal government. Restrictions on government contractors giving money to politicians don't apply to the inaugural. They should.
Fredreka Schouten at USA Today writes that among them are:
Telecom giant AT&T, which spent more than $14 million lobbying Congress and federal agencies during the first nine months of 2012, [and] has been awarded more than $101 million in federal contracts in the current fiscal year, federal contracting data show. Microsoft, which spent nearly $5.7 million on lobbying, has been awarded nearly $4.6 million in technology contracts with Homeland Security, the White House and several other agencies so far during this fiscal year...
Another corporate donor, Centene Corporation, manages health insurance programs for more than a dozen states. Those programs include Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance system for the poor, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates insurance coverage will be expanded to 7 million more Americans in both programs next year as the new federal health care law takes effect.
The other five businesses on PIC's official list are the aforementioned Financial Innovations, the electric utility Southern Company Services, biotech companies Genentech and United Therapeutics, and Stream Line Circle, which the Los Angeles Times said was "an entity tied to philanthropist and gay rights activist Jon Stryker."
Southern Company Services, described by the watchdog Sunlight Foundation as "a major lobbying powerhouse," received stimulus money under the Obama administration's Recovery Act -a $165 million Smart Grid Investment Grant to modernize electrical infrastructure.
Genentech is an active health care lobbyist in Washington and regularly seeks Food and Drug Administration approval of drugs (just last month the FDA okayed the use of Genentech's Tamiflu influenza medication for the treatment of infants.)
United Therapeutics seeks FDA approval for an oral version of an injectable drug used to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension, a lung disorder. Sunlight's Keenan Steiner reported, "The company faced a setback in October when the FDA did not approve the new drug. Its CEO vowed at the time to continue seeking approval 'within the next four years.'"
The next four years? What a coincidence. All the more reason to seize every opportunity to glad hand at inaugural events where there might be a moment or two to slip in a good word as the price for your generosity. United Therapeutics covers its bases. Steiner continued: "The company does not have a political action committee but emerged as a surprising major donor to the Democratic National Convention in September, when it gave $600,000 to the effort, the fifth-biggest donor behind the likes of Bank of America and AT&T."
But for all this, we only know the names of donors and nothing else -- not their location or, most important, how much they've given (although Southern Company did tell the Sunlight Foundation that its donation was $100,000). In another departure from four years ago, the committee won't reveal that information until reports are filed with the Federal Election Commission in late April.
In a recent op-ed, Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, wrote of inaugural fundraising,
Theories range from the claim that Obama is getting a jump-start on funding his presidential library to conjecture that leftover campaign cash will prop up his grass-roots organizing operation, reportedly to be renamed Organizing for Action. Some say that it may even line the pockets of loyal campaign consultants.
Obama's policy in 2009 bested those of all recent occupants of the Oval Office and went way beyond the law's requirements. It appeared he'd set a new precedent for higher standards in transparency. That makes the backsliding this year especially disheartening. In fact, by comparison, this year's process feels like a snub.
But those with money to buy nice things -- or exclusive government access -- won't feel snubbed at the inauguration. Despite reports of corporate and other highrollers offended at alleged aloofness and a lack of perks from the White House during the first term, this time, they'll be welcomed with open arms. The president said it himself -- he likes a good party.
Addendum: The Center for Public Integrity reports on names of new inaugural contributors released over the weekend (http://ow.ly/gYeAe): "Add Bank of America, Coca-Cola, FedEx and a collection of labor unions to the growing list of powerful lobbying forces underwriting the second inauguration of President Barack Obama -- long a vocal critic of the influence industry and corporate political power.
"... Lobbying forces donating to Obama's inaugural have spent nearly $283 million to influence the federal government since 2009 when including previously disclosed corporations, such as AT&T Inc., Microsoft Corp. and energy giant Southern Co. -- a figure likely to grow as the inauguration committee releases the names of more new contributors."