Last week Independent-Record featured a story about a panel discussion hosted by Montanans for Corporate Accountability with the conclusion that "corporations wield enormous influence with the Montana Legislature."

The irony of this story is that some of the individuals quoted as opposing corporate influence are themselves representatives of some of the most influential special interest groups in Helena!

There are more ways than one to measure legislative influence. Analysis of lobbying expenditures seemed to be the focus of this panel discussion, though the general conclusion was that this really isn't a good measure at all due to suspected under-reporting of lobbying expenditures. I disagree with this assessment n all lobbyists are required by law to report expenditures on lobbying, which in my experience most do diligently.

Since the accuracy of lobbying expenditures seems to be in question, let's take a look at election expenditures, which are a more-accurate yardstick because campaign finance activities are subject to more-stringent reporting requirements.

Corporations, including non-profit organizations, are specifically prohibited from influencing elections. Individuals may contribute to Political Action Committees, which in turn are allowed to support candidates, but corporations may not contribute money to PACs. However, many industry associations and non-profit organizations maintain PACs in which they accumulate money from their memberships.

Out of the fifty-six state PACs active in the 2006 election cycle, only four were affiliated with a specific corporation. Another twenty-six PACs were maintained by a business or industry association group. Nine PACs were associated with labor union organizations; one with an environmental organization; and one with a trial lawyer organization. The remaining fifteen PACs are categorized as partisan PACs, affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican parties.

A look at the numbers of PACs in Montana would suggest a preponderance of influence is wielded by business and industry organizations. However, a look at the actual dollars spent by these groups tells a different story.

The number one PAC by far in Montana in 2006 was affiliated with the environmental group Montana Conservation Voters, which spent $124,000. The next closest PAC was the Jobs for Montana PAC (business), which spent $64,000, followed by the AFL-CIO Special Legislative Fund (labor union) at $53,000, the Montana Association of Realtors PAC (business) at $52,000, and the IBEW Committee on Political Education (labor union) at $31,000.

A sum of the thirty business and industry PACs shows that they spent $275,000 in 2006. A sum of the nine labor union, one environmental, and one trial lawyer PACs shows that they spent $276,000. It's obvious most of the 30 disparate business and industry PACs do not wield nearly as much power as some of their non-business counterparts.

Again, it's important to emphasize that the business and industry PACs are not supported with corporate dollars. These PACs are funded by contributions from individuals, i.e. regular Montanan employees and employers in a particular industry group.

The only PAC in Montana that has significant money coming in from out-of-state is the Montana Conservation Voters PAC. In 2006, this PAC accepted $20,000 from Paul Brainerd of Seattle, and $13,000 from Alida Messinger of New York City, among other substantial contributions from out-of-state sources.

And unfortunately, Montana's generous PAC regulations are sometimes abused. Case in point is the Montana Trial Lawyer's Association, whose Helena lobbyist, Al Smith, was quoted in Tuesday's story. In 2004, the Trial Lawyers spent a whopping $333,000 to influence judicial elections in Montana. Big chunks of that money were contributed by some of the very lawyers who plead before Montana courts, including $50,000 from Cliff Edwards of Billings, $20,000 from Alexander Blewett of Great Falls, and $10,000 each from seven other Montana lawyers.

Before some of the liberal groups represented in Tuesday's story go too far in excoriating "corporate influence" in the Montana legislature, they should take a look at their own practices. I would suggest that the biggest influence-peddlers in Helena are not corporate at all, they're the environmental, trial lawyer, and labor union triumvirate who make a big impact in both elections and in the halls of the capital.

What's more, let's not forget that the same industry-association groups who participate in the legislature also represent job-providers in Montana. They represent the interests of the tens of thousands of Montana workers who depend on the jobs provided by business and industry. Montana has often received the negative label of being "bad for business," and the types of negative characterizations made in Tuesday's Independent-Record do nothing but exacerbate that problem.

Chuck Denowh is the executive director of the Montana Business Leadership Council, a non-partisan, non-profit economic research organization dedicated to improving the business climate in Montana.