seems there may be a twinge of quid pro quo in the practice. Such appears to be the case with Linda Lingle, Republican governor of Hawaii from 2002-2010. In 2004, she received the maximum allowable contribution of $6,000 to her re-election campaign from CCA. While a large campaign contribution from a PAC representing a large corporation is nothing out of the ordinary, what is slightly unusual is that Lingle wasn’t up for reelection until 2006. At the time of the contribution, Lingle was part of a push to move more of Hawaii’s prison population into private facilities on the mainland. According to information obtained by the JPI, the number of Hawaiian inmates housed in private facilities increased by 58 percent under Lingle. The practice continued until allegations of prisoner abuse caused Hawaiians to reconsider. One such allegation came from right here in Colorado at the Brush Correctional Facility, where the female prisoners alleged widespread sexual abuse. CCA and GEO Group have both spent millions of dollars on campaign contributions, but a direct correlation between campaign contributions and policy enactment is circumstantial at best. There remains no illegality in this practice. “It’s hard to draw the absolute, direct lines [from contributions to policy]” says Ashton. While campaign contributions are generally reported to election officials, what may be slightly harder to know is the amount of money spent on lobbying. Unlike campaign contributions, lobbying dollars are not tracked. When information is released, it can only be inferred as to which side lobbyists were pulling for.
conservative legislation. Its focus is mainly on state governments. Membership in ALEC is made up of legislators who are charged $50 for the privilege, as well as business representatives who can pay thousands of dollars for access. CCA and GEO Group both have representatives on ALEC’s public safety task force. Through this avenue, both companies are able to not only hobnob with politicians, but actually craft sample legislation. You read that correctly: craft sample legislation, which is often enacted. According to the JPI, of the roughly 1,000 pieces of sample legislation created by ALEC every year, around 20 percent is enacted as law. ALEC has produced legislation requiring mandatory minimum sentences, truth in sentencing laws (which mandate that prisoners serve their sentences without early parole) and the always-controversial “three strikes” program. All of this leads to a larger number of people incarcerated for longer periods of time.
Lobbying may seem to be the most ambiguous area in which prison profiteers influence law makers.
Greater accountability is the goal of the Private Prison Information Act, which has been introduced to the U.S. Congress three times, never making it past committee. The act mandates that private prisons receiving federal dollars would be subject to the same scrutiny as government-run prisons in the form of Freedom of Information Act requests. That’s right, private prisons aren’t accountable in ways that publicly funded prison facilities are. CCA has been lobbying hard on the issue. Again, we can’t possibly know if CCA is pushing for or against this legislation, but it seems doubtful it wants the public to be more involved in their dealings. Lobbying may seem to be the most ambiguous area in which prison profiteers influence law makers. Campaign contributions may be the most law-abidingly crooked, but what is perhaps most shocking is the ability of these companies to control policy directly through personal relationships with lawmakers. It is a process accomplished through organizations such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, a nonprofit dedicated to passing
One of the most glaring examples of this process in action comes from Arizona. In 2011, Arizona passed SB 1070, also known as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, or the “Where are your papers?” act. The law essentially mandated the profiling by law enforcement of suspiciously brown-skinned individuals for the purpose of rounding up illegal immigrants.
Who would come up with a law that so blatantly flouts civil liberties? The law was conceived and drafted at an ALEC meeting which included representatives of CCA. Of the law’s 36 co-sponsors, two-thirds were members of ALEC, and 30 received campaign contributions from CCA or GEO Group. More recently, as taxpayers and legislators begin to see the inability of private prisons to deliver the promised savings that they sell themselves on, there has been a move to relinquish ties with the private prison industry. But for the shrewd minds at CCA and GEO Group, this just means they have to move into more stable markets, such as immigration detention facilities. “The larger shift toward immigration really points to the rolling back at the state level,” says Ashton. For Ashton, the backlash against private prisons isn’t solely based on their inability to deliver the savings promised. It is also a sign of the collective distrust for large corporations following the 2009 recession. Despite public outcry, the world-leading incarceration rates in the United States will most assuredly allow companies like CCA and GEO Group to reap profits for years to come. The influence that these companies wield will not be easily dissipated.
thcmag.com 43