• Try a Digital Subscription campaign: inyt2013_bar1_digi_euro_3LFL3 -- 221762, creative: bar1_digi_euro_3LFL3 -- 353957, page: www.nytimes.com/yr/ mo/day/opinion/politicians-extortion-racket.html, targetedPage: www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/opinion, position: Bar1 • Log In • Register Now • Help • Home Page • Today's Paper • Video • Most Popular Edition: U.S. / Global Search Opinion [ ] Search New York Times [opinion-lo] • World • U.S. • N.Y. / Region • Business • Technology • Science • Health • Sports • Opinion □ Editorials □ Columnists □ Contributors □ Letters □ The Public Editor □ Global Opinion • Arts • Style • Travel • Jobs • Real Estate • Autos Op-Ed Contributor Politicians’ Extortion Racket By PETER SCHWEIZER Published: October 21, 2013 TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — WE have long assumed that the infestation of special interest money in Washington is at the root of so much that ails our politics. But what if we’ve had it wrong? What if instead of being bribed by wealthy interests, politicians are engaged in a form of legal extortion designed to extract campaign contributions? Related • Special PACs Spent Money at Resorts, Book Says (October 22, 2013) Opinion Twitter Logo. Connect With Us on Twitter For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT. Consider this: of the thousands of bills introduced in Congress each year, only roughly 5 percent become law. Why do legislators bother proposing so many bills? What if many of those bills are written not to be passed but to pressure people into forking over cash? This is exactly what is happening. Politicians have developed a dizzying array of legislative tactics to bring in money. Take the maneuver known inside the Beltway as the “tollbooth.” Here the speaker of the House or a powerful committee chairperson will create a procedural obstruction or postponement on the eve of an important vote. Campaign contributions are then implicitly solicited. If the tribute offered by those in favor of the bill’s passage is too small (or if the money from opponents is sufficiently high), the bill is delayed and does not proceed down the legislative highway. House Speaker John A. Boehner appears to be a master of the tollbooth. In 2011, he collected a total of over $200,000 in donations from executives and companies in the days before holding votes on just three bills. He delayed scheduling a vote for months on the widely supported Wireless Tax Fairness Act, and after he finally announced a vote, 37 checks from wireless-industry executives totaling nearly $40,000 rolled in. He also delayed votes on the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act and the Small Company Capital Formation Act, scoring $91,000 from investment banks and private equity firms, $32,450 from bank holding companies and $46,500 from self-described investors — all in the 48 hours between scheduling the vote and the vote’s actually being held on the House floor. Another tactic that politicians use is something beltway insiders call “milker bills.” These are bills designed to “milk” donations from threatened individuals or businesses. The real trick is to pit two industries against each other and pump both for donations, thereby creating a “double milker” bill. President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. seemed to score big in 2011 using the milker tactic in connection with two bills: the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act. By pitting their supporters in Silicon Valley who opposed the bills against their allies in Hollywood who supported the measures, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden were able to create a sort of fund-raising arms race. In the first half of 2011, Silicon Valley had chipped in only $1.7 million to Mr. Obama’s political campaign. The president announced that he would “probably” sign antipiracy legislation — a stance that pleased Hollywood and incensed Silicon Valley. The tech industry then poured millions into Mr. Obama’s coffers in the second half of 2011. By January of 2012, Hollywood had donated $4.1 million to Mr. Obama. Then, suddenly, on Jan. 14, 2012, the White House announced that it had problems with the antipiracy bills and neither passed. “He didn’t just throw us under the bus,” one film executive and longtime supporter of Mr. Obama anonymously told The Financial Times, “he ran us down, reversed the bus and ran over us again.” To be sure, not all legislative maneuvers are extortive; sincere and conscientious political deeds occur. Still, the idea that Washington gridlock is an outgrowth of rank partisanship and ideological entrenchment misses a more compelling explanation of our political stasis: gridlock, legislative threats and fear help prime the donation pump. The reason these fund-raising extortion tactics succeed is that politicians deploy them while bills are making their way through Congress, when lawmakers possess maximum leverage. That’s why at least 27 state legislatures have put restrictions on allowing state politicians to receive contributions while their legislatures are in session. Why not do the same in Washington? It would reduce politicians’ penchant for cashing in on manufactured crises. Perhaps it would even compel Congress to be more efficient while in session. We have focused for too long on protecting politicians from special interests. It’s time we stop pitying the poor politicians and start being wary of them — for they play the shakedown game as well as anyone. [meter] Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the author of “Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes and Line Their Own Pockets.” A version of this op-ed appears in print on October 22, 2013, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Politicians’ Extortion Racket. * Subscribe to the International New York Times newspaper and save up to 65% [GBH_NYT88x3] Get Free E-mail Alerts on These Topics United States Politics and Government Law and Legislation Campaign Finance Senate [1388695317439_us] Banned at home and noticed by Oscars Also on NYTimes.com • Oscar season preview • Learn about Christian Bale's character secrets nytimes.com [13_2259_INYT_Anon_Euro_300x79_ER1] [moth_rever] [moth_forwa] Inside NYTimes.com Opinion » Opinion » Offending Television Theater Business Bloomberg » Op-Ed: » » or Opinion » N.Y. / Fired? Speaking ‘Downton Sports » Region » U.S. » Speak No Theater » In Your From Ore Truth? Abbey’ Op-Ed: Evil Opinion » Seat to Returns Europeans Delivering Books » but on Nuggets, Room for for a United, an Opinion Giving up Your With Debate Fourth in Hating Is Tebow’s Review Houston the right When Toes Peril asks Season Europe New Test of and Its to speak Spidey Op-Ed: whether Table for Bayonne Strip and write Flies No Lethal In Your From Ore speakers ‘Downton Op-Ed: Delivering Two Bridge Clubs freely More, Malfeasance Seat to at the de Abbey’ Europeans an Opinion (Countries) Project Call a strikes Will in Malawi but on Nuggets, Blasio Returns United, Is Tebow’s Is Truce me as the Business? Your With inaugural for a in Hating New Test Assailed unholiest Toes Peril were rude Fourth Europe of deals or merely Season for a speaking writer to for accept. voters. • © 2013 The New York Times Company • Site Map • Privacy • Your Ad Choices • Advertise • Terms of Sale • Terms of Service • Work With Us • RSS • Help • Contact Us • Site Feedback * * DCSIMG