An Effing Valuable Thing
When it comes to sheer political theater, nothing's more titillating than catching a corrupt politician with his or her pants down, whether it's Rod Blagojevich selling a senate seat, William Jefferson stuffing his freezer full of cold cash, or Dianne Wilkerson padding her bra with bribe money.
Sure, clowns like these make for great entertainment. But it's a mistake to just guffaw and move on:
[W]hat's the difference between Jesse Jackson Jr hitting up a bunch of Indian businessmen for $1 million and pledging to dump it in Blago’s political campaign chest, in return for services rendered in the form of the senate seat? If this is felonious conduct, shouldn't 98 per cent of all elected politicians in this country be behind bars? The American political system is fueled by campaign contributions, and corresponding quid pro quos. Politicians are elected to deliver services. They need money to get elected. The people who need services give it to them. That’s the way the system works....
Obama raised more money than any presidential candidate in the history of American politics, and here we are getting excited about Rod Blagojevich?
The subtlety-challenged Blagojevich, Jefferson, and Wilkerson are just the tip of a huge iceberg. American politics is not some noble endeavor to ensure the common good. It's eBay.
If we want an America that is truly by, of, and for the people, we have to take the money out of politics.
Comments
The current parliamentary crisis in Canada was triggered by the Conservative minority government moving to abolish public funded elections.
It was a cynical move, but motivated by a widely held belief the pollies were just sucking on the public tit.
The challenge has been made, but no one has really put the argument for publicly funded elections reducing corruption.
Personally I'd like to see this sort of funding go further, with prescribed and limited, publicly funded limits on spending.
Posted by: Dennis Cartledge | December 13, 2008 03:58 AM
Cart, the only quibble I have is that I'd put the word "extremely" before the word "limited" in your last sentence. With 21st Century communications, candidates don't have to spend megabucks to make their views known.
Posted by: abi | December 13, 2008 09:34 AM
How about a three month campaign with free airspace donated in equal time to the candidates? Won't happen because we now have a large election industry filled with bagmen, talking heads and self alleged experts.
Posted by: Lev | December 17, 2008 01:54 PM
Lev, a three-month campaign is more than enough time to get to know the candidates. And free airspace is reasonable, since broadcasters are required to provide public service shows.
In addition, there are newspapers, pamphlets, and the internet - all relatively inexpensive.
The only thing stopping us from eliminating the corrupting influence of money from the election process is exactly what you said - the election industry is just too powerful.
Posted by: abi | December 17, 2008 07:05 PM