Are Principles And Ethics Void From Political Process?
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
Lately, I've been pretty cynical about the political process in this country.
Seems like if you're principled and ethical, you have no chance.
You may have noticed in last weeks column I noted that four of the candidates in Iowa's Thursday caucuses - Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama - are on the "List of Washington's 10 Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians for 2007."
The list is published each year by Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption.
Not necessarily a ringing endorsement for our political system.
And the candidates themselves don't even endorse the system. They're pretty much all talking about how there's too much money and influence being bandied about.
Of course, these are the very same people who perpetuate the system staying just like it is.
Trying to get campaign finance reform passed is like pulling teeth. And when a bill finally does get passed, there are all manner of "unintended consequences."
Last time (McCain-Feingold in 2002) it was the pesky 527 corporations that popped up everywhere following campaign finance reform.
Here's a brief description of 527 corporations - named for an exemption carved into Section 527 of the IRS code - from Public Citizen.
(Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization founded to represent consumer interests in Congress, the executive branch and the courts. Among other things, the group fights for openness and democratic accountability in government.)
Public Citizen said 527 groups "allow lawmakers to directly amass huge quantities of 'soft money' - unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions. (Other soft money is given through political parties.) With the 527 soft money, politicians sponsor events that further their own careers, give money to state and local candidates, and pay for 'get-out-the-vote' efforts."
Nice little loophole, there, eh?
And it's my guess that a "consequence" like that one probably wasn't all that "unintended."
Remember the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth? Ever heard of moveon.org? They're 527s.
And 527s continue to play a big role in politics today.
Of course, this raises the inherent and overt issue of influence. When it comes time to vote on a bill, who are you going to worry about? The poor little constituent back in your district, or the mega corporation indirectly stuffing huge amounts of cash in your pockets?
I think we all know the answer.
There are dozens of examples of lawmakers blocking or advancing legislation at the behest of highest bidder, ah, I mean, contributor.
None of this is even remotely related to what the founders intended.
Even the elective process itself has fallen prey.
This year, Iowa's primary was Thursday. That's Jan. 3.
By the time Indiana's May primary rolls around, there won't even be a need to vote.
The race already will be decided. The Iowa stuff is nonsense. It's nutty.
They've - and by they I mean political operatives in both parties at the state and national level - pretty much planned it that way.
They knew if they pushed the caucuses up, it would be this way.
They knew it would create a media frenzy and the media were all too happy to comply.
Think about it.
This past year, long before anything was going on in Iowa, all three networks started ratcheting up the coverage.
According to more than one TV analyst, the nightly newscasts have devoted more time to the election in 2007 than the last four presidential elections - all the way back to 1991 - combined.
There were a record 21 debates in 2007, and the election is still 10 months away, for crying in a bucket.
Networks say it's because there's no incumbent, there's a woman, there's a black guy, there's a celebrity, but I'm skeptical.
I think it's because of the money. You've got a bunch of politicians ready to spend enormous amounts of money, what are you going to do if you're a network?
Pump it up. Cash in. That's what you're going to do.
Already the 2008 race is out to set records. In 2004, $880 million was spent on presidential campaigning. This year will easily top a billion. That's a lot of ad buys.
In the first three quarters of 2007, Democrat presidential candidates have taken in a total of $244 million, compared to a lousy $175 million for the Republicans.
Want to get really enlightened? Got to whitehouseforsale.org a Web site run by Public Citizen. There, you can find out about the "bundlers" - wealthy and well-connected donors who collect checks from friends, family and associates for their favorite candidate.
The most famous - or infamous - bundler was Norman Hsu, a bundler for Hillary. He turned out to be a fugitive in a fraud case. Then there was Geoffrey Fieger, the lawyer who represented Dr. Death Jack Kevorkian. Fieger was indicted on charges of illegally funneling $125,000 to John Edwards in 2004. Romney and Obama both had bundlers who were indicted on charges unrelated to their campaigns.
I could go on and on and on and on and on, but it's really starting to bum me out.
The whole political system is a train wreck. Congress is an influence-peddlers' playground and I'm beginning to think there is no way to fix it.
Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses Thursday by talking about change. Both those guys made the "Top 10 Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" list.
So if guys like that are the best options we have for leaders, they're probably right about change in Washington.
Things are going to get worse.[[In-content Ad]]
Lately, I've been pretty cynical about the political process in this country.
Seems like if you're principled and ethical, you have no chance.
You may have noticed in last weeks column I noted that four of the candidates in Iowa's Thursday caucuses - Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama - are on the "List of Washington's 10 Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians for 2007."
The list is published each year by Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption.
Not necessarily a ringing endorsement for our political system.
And the candidates themselves don't even endorse the system. They're pretty much all talking about how there's too much money and influence being bandied about.
Of course, these are the very same people who perpetuate the system staying just like it is.
Trying to get campaign finance reform passed is like pulling teeth. And when a bill finally does get passed, there are all manner of "unintended consequences."
Last time (McCain-Feingold in 2002) it was the pesky 527 corporations that popped up everywhere following campaign finance reform.
Here's a brief description of 527 corporations - named for an exemption carved into Section 527 of the IRS code - from Public Citizen.
(Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization founded to represent consumer interests in Congress, the executive branch and the courts. Among other things, the group fights for openness and democratic accountability in government.)
Public Citizen said 527 groups "allow lawmakers to directly amass huge quantities of 'soft money' - unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions. (Other soft money is given through political parties.) With the 527 soft money, politicians sponsor events that further their own careers, give money to state and local candidates, and pay for 'get-out-the-vote' efforts."
Nice little loophole, there, eh?
And it's my guess that a "consequence" like that one probably wasn't all that "unintended."
Remember the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth? Ever heard of moveon.org? They're 527s.
And 527s continue to play a big role in politics today.
Of course, this raises the inherent and overt issue of influence. When it comes time to vote on a bill, who are you going to worry about? The poor little constituent back in your district, or the mega corporation indirectly stuffing huge amounts of cash in your pockets?
I think we all know the answer.
There are dozens of examples of lawmakers blocking or advancing legislation at the behest of highest bidder, ah, I mean, contributor.
None of this is even remotely related to what the founders intended.
Even the elective process itself has fallen prey.
This year, Iowa's primary was Thursday. That's Jan. 3.
By the time Indiana's May primary rolls around, there won't even be a need to vote.
The race already will be decided. The Iowa stuff is nonsense. It's nutty.
They've - and by they I mean political operatives in both parties at the state and national level - pretty much planned it that way.
They knew if they pushed the caucuses up, it would be this way.
They knew it would create a media frenzy and the media were all too happy to comply.
Think about it.
This past year, long before anything was going on in Iowa, all three networks started ratcheting up the coverage.
According to more than one TV analyst, the nightly newscasts have devoted more time to the election in 2007 than the last four presidential elections - all the way back to 1991 - combined.
There were a record 21 debates in 2007, and the election is still 10 months away, for crying in a bucket.
Networks say it's because there's no incumbent, there's a woman, there's a black guy, there's a celebrity, but I'm skeptical.
I think it's because of the money. You've got a bunch of politicians ready to spend enormous amounts of money, what are you going to do if you're a network?
Pump it up. Cash in. That's what you're going to do.
Already the 2008 race is out to set records. In 2004, $880 million was spent on presidential campaigning. This year will easily top a billion. That's a lot of ad buys.
In the first three quarters of 2007, Democrat presidential candidates have taken in a total of $244 million, compared to a lousy $175 million for the Republicans.
Want to get really enlightened? Got to whitehouseforsale.org a Web site run by Public Citizen. There, you can find out about the "bundlers" - wealthy and well-connected donors who collect checks from friends, family and associates for their favorite candidate.
The most famous - or infamous - bundler was Norman Hsu, a bundler for Hillary. He turned out to be a fugitive in a fraud case. Then there was Geoffrey Fieger, the lawyer who represented Dr. Death Jack Kevorkian. Fieger was indicted on charges of illegally funneling $125,000 to John Edwards in 2004. Romney and Obama both had bundlers who were indicted on charges unrelated to their campaigns.
I could go on and on and on and on and on, but it's really starting to bum me out.
The whole political system is a train wreck. Congress is an influence-peddlers' playground and I'm beginning to think there is no way to fix it.
Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses Thursday by talking about change. Both those guys made the "Top 10 Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" list.
So if guys like that are the best options we have for leaders, they're probably right about change in Washington.
Things are going to get worse.[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092