Those words run run ever true in politics. After all, we have just rediscovered this disappointing theme with the still-steaming case of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his absurd plot to hold an incognito silent auction for the grand privilege of being the U.S. Senator from Illinois—to follow many great men... the last being Lincoln. Blagojevich was quickly indicted as soon as there was enough evidence against him, and held in jail until the case against him took shape. But, alas, he was bailed out of jail after just one night—the most ridiculous bailout since the $700 billion gravy train. Of course, our nation’s wonderful mainstream media jumped on the Blago bandwagon, putting him on various talk shows and gossip shows (a la The View, which gave Blagojevich an entire segment's worth of time to voice his false case). Some went as far as to defend him as if he were their legal client. The notorious quote "I've got this thing and it's ------- golden, and I'm not just giving it up for ------- nothing" played over the airwaves and the Internet thousands of times. Blagojevich went as far as comparing himself to "Mandela, Dr. King, and Ghandi" in an NBC interview—apparently his motives and his mental gallery of worthies are similarly sundry.1 "Had I known somebody else was listening, I wouldn't have used language like that," he admitted, alluding to the fact that that conversation was on his home phone. Blagojevich is finally awaiting formal impeachment, after being removed from power by the Illinois State Senate, which voted unanimously to oust Blagojevich.
Patrick Fitzgerald, the original prosecutor of Blagojevich, has had a steady hand in the dethroning of several dishonest political officers. The last time Fitzgerald was in the limelight was during his case against "Scooter" Libby, who couldn't simply scoot out of trouble as many indicted officials do. Fitzgerald smelled a rat in the case of Blagojevich when outside sources heard rumblings of Blagojevich's conversations and realized something was up involving Barack Obama's vacant senate seat. He quietly sought a warrant for a telephone tap, and heard Blago's prime plotting first (actually, second) hand. It was on that same home phone line that Blagojevich was called on an early morning and advised to step out of his house and meet his arrest quietly.
Ted Stevens was an aged, fine old wise case of end-of-career corruption. He was also proof, as if any more was needed, that the age-old problem of accepting bribes is not limited to one side of the aisle. Ted was a champion of big spending, so it wasn't a surprise that he accepted a large amount of money from various companies and interest groups that had no business in the pockets of politicians.
If corrupt politicians aren't enough, we hear pieces of the story of how the lobbyists are essentially lining up at the White House to reap the benefits for their constituent companies' financial support of Barack Obama during his marathon campaign that landed him in the White House.
About as silly as it gets is when corruption is recycled to create public misconceptions; another type of corruption altogether! Norm Coleman (R-MN) went fishing with Ted Stevens, and according to opponent Al Franken's campaign, oil representatives. Franken's camp was quick to jump on the matter, and what was the result? The obnoxious, cheesy, talking-fish Al Franken TV attack ad that somehow knitted Stevens and Sen. Norm Coleman together as part of a deceitful Democratic patchwork quilt. Partly as a result of such advertising, Sen. Coleman and Franken are (were) still fighting it out, nearly three months after the election. (It was over six months past the election when Franken was chosen as the winner by courts.)
Add the non-politician likes of Bernie Madoff (who made off with several million dollars and is now under Federal investigation, largely by politicians, no less—no telling how many of them are under scrutiny or investigation at a given point) to this sizable slice of America's political pie, and there you have it. The Washington, D.C. news becomes about as bad, lame, or lousy as that of Beverly Hills, Hollywood or Las Vegas.
Back when we elected our political leaders, we didn't have these problems. Things almost never used to happen this way. Whoever has the most cash on hand can essentially buy a berth in the Government.
Indeed, it's all about money. According to the Federal Election Commission, $1,330,861,724 was the total amount contributed to the Presidential candidates of 2008. 2 Just to put it in context, that's well over the amount of money it takes to be included in the Forbes 400 (3) or enough to pay nearly every person in China $1 (we are in great financial debt to their government, after all); if it was to be assumed that everyone in America donated to a Presidential campaign, the average contribution would figure to roughly $4 per person.4 Barack Obama was the first candidate to run a billion-dollar campaign. While on the topic of the length of Presidential campaigns, it is essential to note that Abraham Lincoln—arguably our nation's greatest President, who Barack Obama has tried to imitate with his inauguration, and in several other areas—accepted his nomination for president in May 1860, and campaigned for a mere six months. He didn't bother much with pre-nomination campaigning (or shall we call it premature campaigning? Watch for an article on what made Lincoln so great next issue.)
For many third-party, independent, and long-shot candidates—some of whom have dynamite ideas--getting on the ballot can be the biggest financial hurdle of their campaign. Doesn't that kind of put a price tag on a seat? A lot of the time, getting enough signatures for a petition to put the candidate in question on the ballot is the problem; but even for well-liked, popular third party candidates, the entire process can be strenuous monetarily.
Once leaders are in office in office, many take advantage of what's called per diem. Per diem is supposed to be a kind of milk money for our lawmakers, but many game the system. In the Minnesota State Legislature, a Democratic member boosts his income by over 50% with per diem.5 Of course, Minnesota doesn't pay its congressmen too well; but there is always California, where State Representatives and State Senators get paid over $100,000 plus over $100 per day in daily expenses. It's no wonder the state with a Grizzly bear on its flag (another small wonder) has a bear of a debt at the moment: Every day the "Senate's failure to act" (as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger likes to put it) endures, the lawmakers have the option of taking home a nifty prize for their hard work: another crisp $100 bill, whether they use it for their needs or not. Good old New Hampshire has its money model right - lawmakers there receive a mere $100 per year, and no daily expense money. And they've hit the nail on the head: There's not time wasted voting themselves a pay-raise every third session. However, the $100 yearly salary means would-be leaders have to be in one of two camps: Rich enough to do without a job for about 1/3 of the year, or patriotic enough to serve without worrying where their next meal is coming from. (I suspect lawmakers there get a fair amount of food from special interests. Another interesting item: In some states, "favor food" has to be eaten standing up.)
No discussion of modern politics is complete without the mention of lobbyists. Lobbyists are important because they influence our leaders more than most other methods of convincing. The USA Today reports that a third of retiring top aides become lobbyists (some register and some do not, opting to work for consulting firms, special interest groups, and similar entities).6 Why leave a Senator or Representative's service to work to the taxpayer's detriment? The money. K Street's clients pay their lobbyists a pretty penny to change Congress' mind about things, which takes us right back to the recurring theme of money!
It seems as if no matter which way we look at the political landscape, money is unfortunately the material that holds it together. Can't we recall the days when some members of the Continental Congress were just ordinary people? In the days before incessant TV, radio, and Internet advertising, political candidates had to rely on something much more important: Their real reputation. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't convince the nation (or the world, for that matter, as Barack Obama managed to) by expensive advertising campaigns that they were the person for the job.
There's a real lesson in all of this. Let's reform how our nation selects its candidates. How about a spending cap for campaigns? If Washington refuses to set one, let's get the word out one voter at a time. Let the best candidate—not necessarily the one with the biggest wallet or purse—win.
References/Citations
4: Source: U.S. Census bureau
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to subscribe to our RSS Feed! Then you can receive our posts in your feed reader or email.
