Should Congress hand over its power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations," under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, to the President so he can unilaterally negotiate trade agreements with foreign countries? That is the question ostensibly at stake in Thursday's vote in the House of Representatives on "fast track," which would enable the Bush Administration to expand the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to the rest of the Americas and then hand Congress a treaty that it could only vote up or down on, with explicitly limited debate and without making any changes.

But the first question to ask is why, in the midst of war and economic recession, does the House need to make room on its crowded calendar for this issue? One answer comes when you look closely at how money from corporations and labor unions stacks up in the balance sheets of individual members. At the end of the day, every member of Congress is an expert on one thing: what it cost for them to win office in their last election, where they got their money, and what it will likely cost them to win re-election.

So here's how business money stacks against labor money in "the people's house." In 2000, business supplied 15 times as much money as labor. What that translates to at the level of the individual member is even more startling, particularly when one looks at PAC contributions, where labor spends most of its political money. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, three-quarters of House members collected at least half of their PAC contributions from business interests. In contrast, just 13 percent of House members collected at least half of their PAC contributions from labor. However you do the math, there are far more members beholden to business than to labor.

Do these numbers make a difference in legislative outcomes? The recent battle over China trade is a case in point. On May 24, 2000, the House voted 237 to 197 to grant permanent normal trade status to China, despite fierce opposition by organized labor. House members who voted "yes" had received an average of $44,000 in PAC and individual donations at that point in the election cycle from corporate members of the Business Roundtable, which lobbied hard for passage of the bill, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. Members who voted "no" received an average of $25,000. The 200-plus members of the Business Roundtable outspent labor easily, giving more than $58 million to candidates and parties by that point in the 2000 election cycle, while labor gave $31 million. The source of a member's money made a difference. Among the 188 lawmakers who received more campaign money from labor than from business interests, 73 percent voted "no."

Of course, money doesn't automatically determine outcomes in Congress (though it does drive the agenda). Thursday's vote on fast track is said to be a toss-up. Business proponents say the president needs the authority to help revive the world economy and as a response to international terrorism. Opponents cite a range of problems with the NAFTA model that the Administration is seeking to expand, including the explosion of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada, the loss of 750,000 jobs, and the creation of secret tribunals with the power to undermine of American labor and environmental laws. They warn the result will put more dangerous chemicals in our air, water and food and reduce standards for workplace safety. They also point out that the U.S. has successfully negotiated new trade treaties with countries like Vietnam and Jordan without the benefit of "fast track" authority.

Whatever the result, it's clear already that the "fast track" fight has absorbed a huge amount of energy and attention that could be better spent on measures that everyone can agree would help American workers and the economy deal with the twin crises presented by the September 11th attacks and the recession. But such proposals, like extended unemployment insurance and help with COBRA payments for the 2 million people who have lost their jobs this year, can't seem to get on fast track with Congress. Because he who pays the piper calls the tune.

s