Money + Politics = Corruption

The headlines these days are harsh and depressing if you're a New Mexico Democrat. (See the coverage at Duke City Fix, Joe Monahan and New Mexico Matters.) Even so, I have to snicker at the antics of assorted Republicans and the right-leaning media in gleefully pouncing on the fall-out from the trial of ex-NM Treasurer, Michael Vigil. They seem shocked that the prevailing system of politics and governance -- a true devil's brew of money, favors and special treatment -- is producing corruption.

Could such a system produce anything but corruption? Does anyone really believe that the majority of big donors do so out of the goodness of their hearts or because they are incredibly inspired by the candidate? It's a matter of degree of course, but I think you can expect to find some level of corruption whenever large bundles of money change hands, regardless of the Party or office involved. Tit for tat.

It seems to me that the right-wing apologists for big money in politics should be rushing to the rescue of any and all politicos who are caught taking large "donations" from those with whom they do government business. After all, it's mostly been the Repubs who have long been dedicated to destroying or watering down any campaign finance reform proposal with teeth. The right-wingers never fail to pound home the mantra that giving unlimited bucks to candidates is FREE SPEECH in America, and nothing more. So why have they got anything at all to say about the swirling undertow of the Vigil scandal? You've got me. But then, hypocrisy is the GOP's middle name in this era of Abramoff and DeLay.

The way the system is currently set up, candidates are practically required to seek out huge sums of money from a coterie of bigshots to allow them to run what are considered to be successful campaigns. The paid political operatives who dominate the "culture of consultants" in election politics are deeply addicted to campaigning in this way. In denial, they ignore the fact that Howard Dean's presidential run showed you could rely on millions of small donations instead of the usual large chunks from assorted weasles. Essentially, these are often nothing more than bribes. Instead of seeing the beauty and power of grassroots power, the long-time players push to keep things as they are.

Yes, the conventional wisdom campaign infrastructure is full of "experts" who prefer business as usual, regardless of the corruption factor. It's easier to negotiate tradeoffs for big blobs of money than it is to rally the grassroots for more widespread and genuine support, adopt positions that appeal to large numbers of ordinary people or inspire the base so much they literally throw small donations and volunteer hours at you. So much easier to stick to the system that produces the kind of backroom deals that are being excavated in trials near and far these days, with players from both parties.

I can't tell you how much it irks me to read the press releases of candidates that report exclusively on how much money has been raised, apparently as THE measure of how the said campaign is doing. It's all about process, not content. The goal is to attract more money than your opponent rather than to address wrongs with rights to gain supporters. Given how this system operates, it's easy to see why politicos are so afraid of taking "controversial" positions -- they might irritate the big spenders who like things neutral so their boats don't rock. Change? Reform? Fairness? Honesty? Transparency? These are dangerous concepts to those who beg the money and those who give it.

The price we are paying for this travesty of morality and ethics is high indeed, as you can determine by glancing at any news source these days. Big winners? War profiteers, large financial concerns, oil companies, healthcare and insurance conglomerates, multinational corporations. Big losers? Ordinary Americans, middle class workers, women, children, sick people, seniors, the environment, the national debt, civil rights, education. After all, these folks just don't have the kind of big bucks needed to get the politicos' attention.

I read the other day that Hillary Clinton has raised $39 million for her campaign fund since she won election in 2000, and has about $20 million cash in hand. How has she managed to attract so much cold cash and why are so many giving her so much support? Your guess is as good as mine. Personally I find it obscene. But the campaign advisers and managers whose levels of compensation increase as ad purchases rise must be pleased as punch and counting their chickens. And the big donors must be licking their chops at what they can get in return for their "generosity."

Of course not all politicians who raise large amounts of money are terribly corrupt. But I think the percentage of those not on the take falls with each election cycle. It's just too tempting to skew policy one way or another in return for more bucks to run. It's telling to consider how many prominent elected officials have quit altogether because they could no longer stomach begging money on an almost daily basis from sources they didn't respect. Obviously, it wears on the more honest politicians most. Thus, they're driven out and their replacements too often exhibit much less conscience in the fundraising department. It becomes an escalating race to the bottom.

What We Can Do
So what can we do to clean up this mess? My suggestion is to join Common Cause, which has been working hard to get clean election measures passed locally and nationally. Their New Mexico group, led by Max Brix, was instrumental in the passage of Albuquerque's new open and ethical elections code , which provides for public funding of candidates for municipal office. They are involved with other significant ethics projects as well. Go check 'em out.

Unless we get the currently huge amounts of private cash out of elections and reform other aspects of politics, corruption will no doubt continue on its merry way -- compromising the good, the bad and the ugly as it goes.