The relationship between campaign financing and political favors
is inexorably pulling us down to ruin, but most people refuse to do
the two things that could save us
– educate themselves on the candidates and demand integrity from
their elected officials. Of course, to do these things one has to
assume that people would be willing to give up their own access to
political favors and I’m not sure we can get over that hurdle.
The relationship between campaign financing and political favors is inexorably pulling us down to ruin, but most people refuse to do the two things that could save us – educate themselves on the candidates and demand integrity from their elected officials. Of course, to do these things one has to assume that people would be willing to give up their own access to political favors and I’m not sure we can get over that hurdle.
Campaign financing plays a big part in the equation and financial support is too often repaid, directly or indirectly, with public funds and favors.
When it comes to campaign financing I agree with the Supreme Court – spending money is a form of expression and limiting contributions or spending is a clear restriction of free speech. Furthermore, I do not believe that the government is capable of parceling out political money or access fairly; they have always favored their “friends.” Incumbents tend to take care of themselves first.
The argument for publically funded campaigns and spending limits is that money corrupts and all candidates should have equal footing with the voters. The argument against is that if another Hitler should come along a publically funded system would have to allocate money to advance his candidacy. Meanwhile, the opposition would be hampered by contribution and spending limits. Of course, they could bar a Hitler – but if they could bar someone, they could also bar anyone.
The same double-edged sword applies to requirements for full disclosure. Supporters claim that knowing the extent and source of financial support will dampen the tendency for winners to repay donors with political and/or economic favors. The argument against full disclosure is that it can lead political and economic retaliation against those on the other side. Disclosure has not worked so far.
As I go down the list of political contributors whose real identity is often hidden behind the false front of a Political Action Committee or a commercial enterprise, I constantly find myself thinking – is this a contribution to good government or just a thinly disguised payoff to buy favors?
If company X, union Y or citizen Z contributes to a candidate, will that official be able to put that fact aside when X, Y, or Z comes asking for a favor in return? In far too many cases the answer has been no. Instead, one favor has generated another; the supporters of the winners have been rewarded with taxpayer money while those associated with the losers were penalized.
This political spoils system in all its ugliness is on full display in the corruption trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, also known as “Blago.” Unfortunately, it is not unique. You can bet that somewhere a politician is telling a confidant, “Blago just didn’t understand how you do it; you never ask for a favor directly, it’s all done with a wink and a nod.” This has led to an unprecedented but justifiable level of cynicism among the voters.
Even when support does not buy votes directly, politicians are not beyond allowing the contributors to believe that it does. As one wise reader posted when I criticized nasty campaigning – “the candidates do it because it works.” The same applies to institutionalized legalized corruption.
Last year, according to the New York Times, Congress added $16 billion in earmarks to the federal budget much of it going directly to political supporters. This year – an election year that has incumbents scurrying – the same people have promised to reform. Somehow, I think the election and the promises to reform are related. History says that when the election goes away, so will the promises.
