What a weird campaign season this has been. According to polls, the majority of Americans are not enamored with either presidential choice; unfavorable ratings for both are at record levels.
Voters feel disillusioned, that government isn’t listening to them and can’t be trusted. This may be the first time in recent history where there is so much divisiveness and undiluted anger in the country and within the body politic.
Yet even with all the angst, there seems to be a growing consensus in both parties on one particular issue. Voters from all sides are rebelling against the establishment – against ‘typical’ Washington politicians…’typical’ meaning, well, all of them. Candidates are going to extremes to tout their lack of governmental experience … just think about that. In what other career is lack of experience seen as a plus! When Trump voters are asked what appeals to them, a frequent response is ‘he’s not a politician.’ And what they dislike about Hillary is that she is. What they’re really saying, is “I want someone who works for me.” Voters, and even a few politicians, are proposing term limits to counter the effects of the life-long incumbent. We rightly rail against those who enter Congress firmly in the middle class but somehow, inexplicably, leave government as millionaires. Let’s put aside the fact that our do-nothing Congress is, in large part, the result of refusing to consider or vote for anything that’s supported by the President; there is another reason for this inertia and it will exist long after this President leaves office. That reason is money. The workings (or non-workings) of our government are based on the principle of legalized bribery and it begins with the decision to run for office.
In 2012, the average cost to win a Senate seat was 10.5 million dollars; the average for a House win was 1.7 million. There are a few self-funders but that’s no solution; in fact the idea that only the rich can run for office would be an anathema to the Founding Fathers. Running for office costs money – there’s no denying that. But big checks come with at least the perception of big expectations, and the odds for corruption increase. That may sound like a harsh word but the founders defined it, in part, as putting private interests above the public good.
A few candidates are taking steps on their own to disavow private influence by refusing to accept money from big corporations and Superpacs. Bernie Sanders did it and proved he could still be competitive. But when opponents don’t do likewise, it creates an uneven playing field. It should be the contrast of platforms, ideas, promises and priorities that determine who wins, not the amount of money in the coffers.
From the day winners take office, they have to raise money for the next election. It’s estimated that newly elected members of the House have to raise 10K per week in order to defend their seat two years hence. They average 10 hours per week on the phone begging for money for the next race and even more time schmoozing with prospective donors. And that’s time not spent working for constituents. The exchange of big money is just that – an exchange – for influence, for access, for quid pro quo. I give you this; you give me that. I rub your back etc. etc.
After our newly minted politician is sworn in and on the job, the serious bribery begins. Let’s say our new Congressman came to office with a promise to work to lower the cost of prescription drugs. Or provide ways to refinance student loans. Or alter the tax code so that all corporations pay their fair share. In 2011, there were 23 registered lobbyists for every member of Congress. They represent every industry, group and concept imaginable…the good, the bad and the ugly. Assuming the public good (lowering drug prices, helping lower interest on student loans or fair taxation) doesn’t match the goal of private interests, (keeping drug prices high, more money for banks and corporations), there are lobbyists paid to assure that their bosses private interests come before the public good. So now our newbie Congressman is besieged from all sides…from constituents who want promises fulfilled, to the lobbyist promising to fund an opponent in the next primary, if they are. There is a push and pull between the public good and private interests. Politicians have to decide between the two. Too often, the result is to do nothing at all. This year, Congress spent more time in recess than in session, accomplishing little, while drawing a nice paycheck at taxpayer expense. No wonder voters are pissed!
That’s the problem with politics in America. Until the influence of money is eliminated or seriously reduced, nothing will change. Congress will continue to remain in the doldrums with 10% approval. And citizens will continue to view politicians as self-serving and untrustworthy. This is the overriding issue. The influence of money in politics is preventing a truly responsive government by, of and for the people.
But there are solutions. Zephyr Teachout, Associate Professor of Law at Fordham University, in her book Corruption in America, provides some ideas.
Congress can pass legislation banning former members from becoming lobbyists. At this point about 50% of Senators and 47% of House members make that their next career move. By eliminating this possibility, we might get candidates more interested in serving the public than themselves.
Allow only public funding for presidential elections by providing a tax credit up to a certain amount to spend on the candidate of their choice.
End Citizens United and Superpacs which allow unlimited campaign contributions.
Disallow contributions by corporations to any federal, state or local campaign and set a maximum of, say, $300.00 for an individual contribution to any one candidate.
Ban all contributions of any sort, at any time, from lobbyists.
Bust those trusts! We are heading for an oligarchy if we’re not already there. Reducing the number of massive corporations that have essentially become monopolies will reduce their influence and go a long way toward reducing corruption.
Ask candidates at all levels what they are prepared to do to end the influence of big money in politics and to promote campaign finance reform.
Voters, regardless of party, instinctively know that government should be about promoting laws and actions that support the public good – however each candidate chooses to define that. And we also recognize the corrupting influence of money. Unless we take this problem seriously, it will destroy our republic from within just as surely as any foe from without.
Marsha Shearer is a resident of The Villages.
