(MintPress) – The 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama played out like a fairy tale, not just for liberals, but for others caught up in the historical significance of the event. The extravagance was evidence, yet the corporate funding for festivities was kept out. This year, the floodgates for corporate donations have been opened, creating yet another avenue for big business to work its way into the White House.
In 2009, a then-president-elect Obama made the decision to keep corporations out, representing his alleged allegiance to transparency and limits on corporate influence. The rules set by Obama did not just apply to corporations, but also to political action committees (PACs) and lobbyists. For individuals donating to the inauguration, a limit of $5,000 was imposed.
Even without that revenue source, the fundraising efforts for the 2009 inauguration broke records, ushering in $53 billion, the largest price tag the U.S. has seen, according to the New York Times.
Corporate sponsorship doesn’t apply to the inauguration ceremony itself, as that comes at taxpayers’ expense, regardless of the president. Instead, it relates to inauguration-related festivities, particularly the parade.
The inauguration of 2013 will march to a different tune. This time around, the shroud of historical significance has been lifted, as have the ban on donations — and all eyes are critical of the president for accepting corporate donations.
“Our goal is to make sure that we will meet the fundraising requirements for this civic event after the most expensive presidential campaign in history,” White House committee spokesman Addie Whisenant said in a statement.
While corporations have been given the green light, the Obama administration did stop short of allowing lobbyists and super PACs contribution access, as was indicated in a New York Times story.
But for government watchdogs, that’s hardly comforting. On Dec. 7, the day the announcement for corporate funding was made, Public Citizen, an organization advocating for government transparency, likened the two as one of the same.
“The problem with donations from lobbyists is that they expect something in return for their contribution,” Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said in a statement. “The situation is exactly the same with corporate contributors, virtually all of whom employ lobbyists.”
Obama’s shift in corporate sponsorship is nothing new for the president. During the 2012 election, the president and his team publicly acknowledged support for liberal-leaning super PACs — a move likely made to counteract the growing power of Republican super PACs.
Leaning on corporate interests
Obama’s take on corporate spending in the election cycle has been varied. A speech given by the president at the 2012 Democratic National Convention this summer in Charlotte, N.C. depicted a man opposed to Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruling that ushered in a new era of unlimited corporate election spending.
Yet even as the president made those statements, the wheels were in motion to formally support Priorities USA, a liberal super PAC that helped the Obama campaign along the path to victory.
The justification for the switch in support was given on the basis that Republicans were controlling the playing field, in terms of super PAC spending and utilization. And if Democrats wanted a chance at victory, they had to play ball.
“With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm,” Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager, said in an email to supporters.
The timing of the corporate-sponsored inauguration could not be more controversial for the president, as it lands on the anniversary of Citizens United. This has given government watchdogs even more fuel to criticize the president, highlighting the conflict of interest that persists when corporations are given access to fund White House events.
“That the corporate-funded inaugural festivities will fall on the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, is not just ironic given President Obama’s stated support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision holding that corporations can spend unlimited amounts on elections, it undermines the case for corporate-free elections,” Weissman said in a statement.
What money can buy
While the list of corporate donors is not out, Whisenant said in a statement that the names of donors will be highlighted on its website.
That’s for the general public, presumably. Those in attendance will know the price tag of donors based on the events they attend.
In the Presidential Inaugural Committee 2013 schedule, the festivities high-end donors are permitted to attend are listed in plain sight. For institutions (corporations) contributing more than $1 million, access will be granted to Finance Committee “Road Ahead” meeting, along with tickets to the Inaugural Ball and reserved spots at the Inaugural Parade, among other events.
Corporations donating $500,000 will also receive tickets to the Ball and “Road Ahead” meeting. Perks are additionally given to corporations giving $100,000 or more. Individuals donating $10,000 or more will be in line for advantages.
Ridding elections of corporate influence
The news of corporate involvement in the inauguration casts a shadow of doubt over the future of Citizens United, mainly its reversal. While campaigns have already shown the signs of addiction to unlimited corporate influence, the dependence is now highlighted through the inaugural process, long after the presidential race has been won.
While the administration has claimed that corporations will not be allowed to “sponsor” events, it is their funding that will allow the extravagant show to go on. It’s yet to be seen how they’ll make their presence known through the festivities.
Watchdog groups had previously petitioned the president not to turn to such measures. The defeat represents the shrinking gap between corporate and political involvement. It takes the U.S. one step closer to a corporate-sponsored democratic process, of which, in some respects, has already been created.
“The American people have a right to expect something other than an inauguration brought to them by the Bank of America,” Weissman said.