Part of the scandal of Abramoff is that it lends credence to those who believe that our politics is uniquely dirty and so we need new and better laws to clean up the act. The actions of both parties lead to the conclusion that everybody is dirty. In fact few politicians are dirty. I believe our politics is as free from corruption as any regime in history. That is not to say it is totally free from corruption. That would be an obvious falsehood. But compared to politics world wide and through history, American politics today is relatively free from corruption. It is scandals such as this that lead to a misperception on the part of the public and gives aid and comfort to demagogic politicians who seek to restrict our freedoms through such means as the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act (I am not suggesting that everyone who voted for these bills is a demagogue, although some like John McCain engaged in demagoguery to get BCRA passed). These hideous pieces of legislation restrict our freedoms while doing nothing about the problem of interest group influence in Washington. The evidence that they do nothing is that the influence continues, if not grows, leading to calls for more and more pieces of legislation to "clean up the mess" as if making more rules is the answer. And I find it interesting that people who find the infallibility of the papacy laughable are completely credulous when the Supreme Court says that the government dictating the contents of political advertisements is not a violation of free speech rights (the papal analogy is tongue in cheek, by the way). I know the Supreme Court has upheld the lion's share of both FECA and BCRA, but using that as an argument is akin to saying something is right "because dad said so." It's just an appeal to authority. Don't tell me "the Supreme Court says so." They aren't infallible, you know. Give me arguments.
But isn't DC crawling with lobbyists trying to manipulate government to their own ends? Yes. Any why not? First, it is at the heart of democracy for people to organize in order to influence the government to respond to their interests. That's kinda what democracy is. We should not be surprised when it happens. Also, it makes financial sense. Imagine you run a company whose industry, like all industries, has a professional association that has lobbyists in Washington. You and your fellows spend $1 million in order to lobby Congress. Out of this you get one measly little $10 million program. Given that the government spends almost $5 million a minute, and the total budget is $2.6 trillion, $10 million is chump change. But you and your compatriots just made 1000% profit on your $1 million contribution. Who wouldn't play this game? By the way, I take this argument from Jonathan Rauch's excellent book on the subject. Why are their so many lobbyists in DC? Because there is so much money to be made. When the government spends $2.6 trillion, people will line up to get their share. If you build it, they will come.
If you want to reduce the influence of interest groups I suggest two goals. First, strengthen political parties. Parties have an interest in broad based coalitions. Interest groups represent narrow interests. As long as we are free, people will organize to influence the government to their own ends, and parties are healthier avenues than are interest groups. Second, contain the size of government. Here are some specific reforms that have no hope of ever becoming law:
1. Get rid of primary elections and go back to party caucuses (as in Iowa). Parties must have the power over their own nominations in order to enforce party discipline and primary elections go too far in taking that power away from parties.
2. Allow for unrestricted donations to political parties (excepting foreign donations) and allow the parties to more easily coordinate with candidates. People will give money to influence politics. It is better for that money to go to parties and candidates rather than interest groups. I'd rather have George Soros giving $20 million to the Democratic Party than to Moveon.org. It seems beyond silly to me that federal election law makes it extremely difficult for parties and candidates to coordinate. Coordination with candidates is what parties should be for! We want our candidates to be beholden to parties. This is an institutional check on their behavior instead of devoting our energy to passing new complex rules for campaign financing. We could avoid the hated "appearance of impropriety" by increasing disclosure requirements for contributions to parties.
3. Hold non-military spending to the rate of inflation. I hate to say it, but this may require a kind of Balanced Budget Amendment. In general I am opposed to such things because it is an admission that we can't really govern ourselves, so we need gimmicks. Also, putting public policy into the Constitution is generally a bad idea. Still, there may be no other way to contain the size of government.
This said, these proposals have about as much chance of becoming law as Texas does of beating USC tonight. (Note: I am notoriously bad at predictions, be it in politics or sports. I really want Texas to win, so I figure if I pick USC, that increases Texas's chances).
Update: I now magically envision a Texas win by the score of...ummmmm...41-38.
Recent Comments