Some Thoughts on the Corruption of Money in Politics

W. A. Barrett, San Jose

www.wbarrett.us, wbarrett1076@comcast.net

Security Door

What are the problems in the structure of our government that need tweaking? Let’s distinguish between problems that could be solved through a normal political process from those in which some constitutional provision is the roadblock.

Lawrence Lessig, in Republic, Lost, claims that a central problem with our republic lies in the way in which our political decisions have become corrupted by who can put up the most money, rather than by who can produce the most popular votes. And -- some revisions to the Constitution will be necessary to correct this.

We all know about the influence of the K street lobbyists on Congress. But how does that work, given that the overt sale of issue votes for cash is not only illegal, but usually caught and punished? For example:

· Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif., 1991-2005) was corrupt. He took $2.4 million in exchange for securing contracts from the Defense Department. He was convicted and sentenced to 8 years and 4 months in prison.

· Congressman William J. Jefferson (D-La.; 1991-2009) was corrupt. Federal agents found $90,000 wrapped in aluminum foil in his freezer, money he obtained through bribes. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison.

· Since Buckley vs. Valeo (1976), Congress has the power to ban activities that merely raise the suspicion of such quid pro quo bribery.

So what are those lobbyists doing to so distort our democracy?

The story starts with the perceived need of every politician for campaign cash -- lots of it.

· Running for election has become really expensive. Buying television time is most of the expense; running a continuous campaign (travel, mailings, web site managers, signs, campaign staff) account for more.

· Every member of Congress, in either party, is expected to spend several hours on the phone every day, dialing for dollars.

· That’s distracting. It takes time away from the member’s real responsibility, which is deliberating on measures before the Congress, and meeting with constituents. And, it’s corrupting. Why? Read on...

· So much easier to ring up a few wealthy supporters and ask for major contributions. If one phone call can get a promise from a “bundler” for $100,000, that’s worth a thousand phone calls to small contributors.

· But -- the bundler will expect a favor in return. The politician is typically more than grateful for the money. She feels obligated to do something in return. And that “something” is not likely to be in the public’s interest.

· Lessig calls this a “gift economy” exchange, rather than a “quid pro quo” exchange. Equally corrupt, but much more difficult to criminalize, detect infractions and enforce.

What Can Be Done About It?

Political campaigns will still require money or its purchasing equivalent, but -- how can the corruption be curbed? Here’s my list:

1. Get rid of the “dialing for dollars”. No calls from any office-holder for any solicitation of funds. This may require an amendment strengthening Article I, section 9, clause 8, which is:

No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under the United States, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Emolument: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites (online Webster’s)

2. Full public funding of campaign expenses. Private funding from small donors could be encouraged through an income tax check-off system, or through internet email appeals.

3. Restore and strengthen the fairness doctrine, requiring every broadcast station to dedicate free air time in the public service. In particular, stations should broadcast a certain amount of free political speech by candidates during prime time, especially in the weeks before a major election.

4. Restore full funding to PBS and NPR. In return for that, these public channels agree to not accept any paid commercial advertising, nor hold more than a minimum number of “pledge breaks”. They would also clearly provide plenty of air space to political issues, in a nonpartisan, objective way, as they now do.

5. In conjunction with (4), I’d like to see a federal tax on every television set or radio sold, with the proceeds sent to PBS/NPR.

6. Reverse the Citizens United decision, e.g. a corporation is not a “person” entitled to full protection of “persons” under the Constitution and acts of Congress.

7. Pass a Disclose act, similar to California’s AB 1148, to make transparent the funders of any broadcast or printed material.

8. Close the “revolving door” by which a Congressperson can expect to triple his/her salary by moving into a congressional lobbying firm after completing a term or two in office.

See a one-page summary by Lawrence Lessig, in The American Prospect, Jan-Feb 2012, page 45

A Suggested Reading List

Finding quality political material can be challenging. We live in a media-saturated world that often relies on poor or non-existent evidence, slogans, a short attention span and political bias. There’s always some corporation or wealthy conservative who has a financial interest in warping your opinions against your own best interests.

The cure is finding sources of information that probe into the details of issues and that avoid slick and fast slogans.

The counter to the slogan “Drill, baby, drill!” is an article in Scientific American that provides you with comparative analyses of various proposals to lessen global warming. For example, ethanol obtained from corn has been hyped by Archer-Daniels-Midland as an answer to burning fossil fuel. What ADM does not tell you is that the manufacturing process for ethanol requires considerable fossil fuel, and, overall, it would be better to just directly refine that oil into fuel. Ethanol production has been very profitable for ADM and various midwest farmers, but has in fact contributed to global warming.

Web Sites/Newspapers

The New York Times. See http://www.nytimes.com. The Times would like you to subscribe to their paper edition, but you can also get on their email list and get an excellent selection of current articles every day. Is the NYT biased toward Democrats? Judge for yourself. You will also find articles and opinion sections critical of Obama -- but they explain why.

Magazines

Scientific American. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/ Best source for the layman to get objective, science-based information on almost everything, including many hot topics in the political arena. Articles are tailored to the general public, non-mathematical, but you can dig into the details if you want to by tracking down the author’s publication list.

The American Prospect. See http://www.prospect.org. This magazine should be must reading for the serious progressive. You will find in-depth articles on current events. Quite frankly, it’s critical of the GOP in general, and sometimes Obama, but the articles deal with issues and why the GOP is so often on the wrong side -- that is, if you believe in the American Dream of equal opportunity, and caring for our children, elderly and disabled. Are you a serious Democrat? You should subscribe to this magazine.

Books

Lawrence Lessig, Republic, Lost, 2011, the Hatchette Book Group. How money corrupts Congress -- and a plan to stop it. Those interested in constitutional amendments to curb the influence of money in politics, restoring one-person-one-vote, need to read this. Lessig urges all of us to get involved in discussing amendments in a bottom-up process that should lead to major reforms in governance.

Jeffrey D. Sachs, The Price of Civilization, 2011, Random House. Also see Common Wealth, by the same author. Sachs reviews how supporting our modern technological civilization requires attention to social issues, through education, health care, food, drug and pharmaceutical safety controls, all of which require expanded government services. He pleads with the wealthy to consider relinquishing control over the political process and accept the higher taxes on their income that will be required to achieve a just society. This is a thoughtful and analytical rebuke to the conservative view of “every person for him or herself”.

Robert H. Frank, The Darwin Economy, 2011, Princeton University Press. Professor Frank is on the Princeton economics faculty, with many publications. He argues that most economies follow a Darwinian rule of natural selection, rather than following rational, full-information analysis as posited by Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations, 1716). His argument undercuts the conservative view that an unregulated free enterprise economy always delivers the best results.

Thomas Frank, The Wrecking Crew, 2008, Metropolitan Press. Frank reviews how radical conservatives in the Bush administration managed to destroy so many of our federal environmental, health, drug and food safety controls. Science was emasculated in many agencies in favor of right-wing political slogans.

Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal, 2007, W. W. Norton. Professor Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner in economics, and a frequent contributor to the New York Times. This book reviews our political economy from 1900 to the present. He argues that high taxes on the wealthy (including a strong estate tax) promotes middle-class prosperity, and results in a much less divided government, with much less influence of the moneyed class.

Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy, 2006, Viking Press. Phillips connects the unholy alliance between Republican politics, big oil and radical evangelical religion in this classic. Many tables, graphs, references, plus a compelling story.

John Dean, Worse than Watergate, 2004, Little, Brown. John Dean is the author of dozens of books on the rise of the conservative movement, and how it went wrong under the Reagan and Bush administrations. Yes, this is the same lawyer who revealed so much so accurately, from memory, about the Watergate scandal, from his position as Whitehouse legal advisor under Richard Nixon. A more recent book, Conservatives Without Conscience, 2006, has won favorable reviews.