Springsteen Concerts as Campaign Fundraisers: Dancing in the Dark

A lobbyist's job is to influence the legislative process in favor of his or her clients' interests, a charge accomplished by writing position papers, drafting sample legislation, meeting with members of Congress and their staffs -- and, oh yes, contributing great piles of money to campaign funds of elected officials.

Several lobbyists presumably fulfilled the last task to the tune of "No Surrender" at two sold-out Bruce Springsteen concerts in DC a year ago. Agents representing special interests attended at least 19 fundraisers hosted by lawmakers at the concerts.

How much money did they give? And who, exactly, attended these shindigs? Well, that's the where we find the brilliant disguise. Because these fancy skybox events were private, it's hard to say who bought entry, at several thousand dollars a person, or what kind of legislative business went on during the concerts.

In theory, the public is supposed to be able to learn -- if they wish -- which lobbyists gave how much to what lawmakers. The Federal Election Commission requires politicians to disclose dates and amounts of contributions they receive in periodic reports, and lobbyists and political action committees must disclose money they contribute to candidates. But as ProPublica's Sebastian Jones recently demonstrated, there is a huge gap between what lawmakers are required to report and how thoroughly they actually do it.

Although so-called sunshine laws and government oversight of regulated industries do curb corruption and protect the public's interest, they don't illuminate nearly enough. Direct, unobstructed sunlight rarely shines on the inside practices of businesses that transact with the government. At the Springsteen events, the result was closer to darkness on the edge of town.

As reporters well know, most publicly available records are less than perfectly "transparent." For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission requires corporations to submit quarterly reports regarding their fiscal health, but the regulator does not insist on comprehensibility in the financial reports arriving electronically from thousands of publicly traded companies every day. The Food and Drug Administration oversees the manufacture of medicines and packaged foods, but the gibberish-like ingredient descriptions on soup can labels and antihistamine wrappers could be easily swapped and very few consumers would know the difference.

Although private non-profit watchdog groups such as Project on Government Oversight, Center for Public Integrity, and OMB Watch monitor accountability, hold Congress to high standards and encourage regulated industries and agencies to be open and transparent, there are limits to compliance. Adherence varies from business culture to culture, and some folks need extra persuasion to do the right thing. It should come as little surprise that full disclosure is more concept than certainty in the closely regulated but loosely observed world of political lobbying.

In the case of the Springsteen concerts, election commission records of dates the politicians said they got money differed significantly from dates the lobbying donors said they disbursed contributions. An FEC spokeswoman told ProPublica, "In a perfect world, they match up." The non-profit investigative journalism outlet found no filings that clearly identified who attended the fundraisers at the Springsteen events (where Rahm Emanuel was seen backstage with the Boss) or how much money was raised.

So much for the FEC's vaunted archives of "information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable." Maybe all that sunshine caused politicos to be blinded by the light?