opinion

Kaffer: Enbridge Oil and the Case of the Dark-money Coincidence

It's really OK to judge a ballot initiative by the company it keeps.

Consider, for instance, an anti-gerrymandering proposal that seeks to create a new, non-partisan citizen's commission that will have the authority to redraw Michigan's political map after the next census.

Then consider the the Michigan Chamber of Commerce's decision to bankroll opposition to that proposal, and the contemporaneous (but, all parties insist, coincidental) six-figure donation Canadian oil giant Enbridge made to a chamber political action committee.

Now go on and judge the daylights out of that.

It's not just that there are a whole lot of special interests lined up against the anti-gerrymandering proposal; it's that the furtive path the chamber's opposition to the proposal has seemingly taken starkly highlights the trouble with dark money in politics.

Michigan's legislative districts are horribly gerrymandered, drawn by the party with a legislative majority to favor itself. Right now, that's Republicans; historically, whichever party's on top in Lansing skews the maps accordingly.

Kaffer: Enbridge Line 5 pipeline: Here to stay, I guess?

Kaffer: Why Bernie Sanders wouldn't like Lansing

A group called Voters Not Politicians proposes an alternative, non-partisan redistricting process in a proposed constitutional amendment likely to appear on the November ballot. If approved by voters, VNP's plan would invest responsibility for drawing the state's political map in a 13-member citizen redistricting commission consisting of five independent members and four each from the Republican and Democratic parties.

A handful of other states have adopted independent redistricting commissions, or other reforms aimed at achieving the same result. Ohio voters approved such a measure Tuesday, 75% to 25%.

Who'd oppose an effort to make redistricting less partisan, to give voters more say in how they're represented? Anyone who supports the status quo, which I must tell you is not working super well for most Michiganders.

So let's talk about Enbridge and the Michigan Chamber.

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce boasts that it is the state's most effective lobbying organization. (A recent blurb on the group's website notes that chamber representatives testified in Lansing in favor of what it calls "commonsense" Medicaid reforms, a scheme of racially biased work requirements that would deprive many current beneficiaries of life-saving or -sustaining health coverage.) The Chamber has more money than Croesus, and spends freely in political races to influence voters in service of their business-first beliefs.

Brian Dickerson: Long live the Deep State

Mike Thompson: Want better choices in November? Then vote this August

Enbridge, the company responsible for a 2010 oil spill on the Kalamazoo River, pumps oil through the aging Line 5 pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac, where a significant spill would have catastrophic consequences for Michigan's coastline. State lawmakers have made a lot of noise about shutting Line 5 down, but thus far have taken no action. (See: status quo.)

Michigan Chamber President and CEO Richard Studley has spoken on behalf of Enbridge, advocating for Line 5's continued operation.

Back in October, Enbridge donated $125,000 to money to Michigan Chamber of Commerce PAC II, a Chamber-affiliated political action committee formed in 2008. The oil giant had previously donated $1,650. The most recent contribution accounts for more than half of all the money contributed to Chamber PAC II this election cycle, Free Press reporter Keith Matheny disclosed earlier this week.

A few days after Enbridge's contribution, Chamber PAC II donated $35,000 to Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution, a second-Chamber affiliated PAC that is leading the opposition to the anti-gerrymandering ballot proposal. In February, Chamber PAC II sent Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution $100,000. That group has filed a challenge to Voters Not Politicians' petition in an attempt to keep the proposal off the ballot, saying it's too far-reaching and insufficiently specific.

Chamber president and CEO Richard Studley says there's no connection between Enbridge and the Chamber PACs' donations or actions; the PAC didn't require Enbridge cash to fund its anti-anti-gerrymandering operations, Studley says.

And he can surely say that. But it's not absurd for any voter, absent documents memorializing an agreement between the PAC and Enbridge that its contribution wouldn't fund anti-anti-gerrymandering work, to question his assertion that not a single dollar of Enbridge's sizable donation found its way into anti-VNP campaign.

So, to recap: Oil giant that doesn't want its environmentally risky aging pipeline shut down donates a big wad of cash to a political action committee run by a stridently pro-business group with a great track record of influencing the current crop of lawmakers. Political action committee makes substantial donation to another PAC that's trying to kill a ballot proposal that would give regular Michiganders more influence over lawmakers, before voters get a chance to weigh in. All parties insist everything's five by five.

Dark money is bad enough on its own; taxpayers deserve to understand who's funding elections, and why. But when those details are murky, it's hard to feel confident that our government is working for us. Dark money helps destroy public trust and faith in representative government designed to serve people, not deep-pocketed special interests.

Every time I write about dark money in politics, I know I risk turning readers off further. Some folks will see this column as just more proof that the system is rigged, their votes don't matter and them that has, gets.

Changing the way we draw legislative districts — giving regular people more influence over government, and showing special interest groups that they can't buy elections — would show that it doesn't have to be that way.

Contact Nancy Kaffer: nkaffer@freepress.com.