A Reformer's Job is Never Done

Conservative Outpost ^ | 1/10/06 | Drew McKissick

[Drew McKissick]

For the record, Jack Abramoff, and any one else who has committed such crimes should go to jail. But in the wake of the Abramoff lobbying scandal, various members of the US House and Senate are jockeying to be the first to introduce (and have their names attached to) legislation regarding lobbying reform. Those that can’t be first will no doubt try to top the others with more stringent versions of the legislation.

In other words we’re about to be treated to another version of that favorite Beltway game, the reform follies. This is a game where the participating politicians glom on to a high profile issue that the public is convinced “needs fixing”, and then proceed to take a high profile role, (gaining lots of TV face time), in pushing legislation that ignores human nature and addresses everything except the real problem. Or worse, the reforms ride the wave of media hype, all the while containing little known details that will infringe on the rights of Americans.

Such was the case with the McCain-Feingold version of campaign finance reform. The legislation was the result of a process whereby a politician, namely John McCain, needed a foil for his 2000 presidential run and found it in “special interest groups”, then created an issue, (campaign finance), and the need for “reform” as a rationale for his campaign. Unfortunately, the agenda outlived his failed presidential bid, thanks in large part to the news media.

In practice, this particular reform has failed completely in accomplishing any of its supposed goals, such as stemming the influence of “special interests” in the campaign finance process. This is due to the fact that virtually every American citizen is part of, or represented by, some special interest which makes campaign contributions to candidates and then lobbies them once they’re in office.

The real reason so many Americans take time to contribute or participate in political campaigns, take part in grassroots lobbying efforts, or give to a special interest group that employs professional lobbyists is rooted in the tremendous size and scope of our government. Period.

One could probably do some research and discover a pretty direct correlation between the rise in campaign contributions or the number of lobbyists to several indicators; such as the number of pages in the federal registry, the number of laws passed by Congress or the size of the federal budget.

Campaign contributions and the work of lobbyists, (paid for by citizens or businesses that have citizen stockholders), are an expression of Americans trying to have their voices heard by those in positions of governance. If the government wasn’t so big and its regulatory tentacles into so many aspects of our lives, I’m sure we would feel much less inclined to make political contributions, much less hire lobbyists to help us get the government off our back - or keep them from getting on it.

The point is that if our politicians are so incredibly concerned about too much money in politics, (whether in campaigns or lobbying), then they should stop attacking the symptom and get started on the root cause – our bloated, busy-body government.

Former Democrat Senator Zell Miller addressed that subject in a speech last year and suggested that the genesis of the problem lies in the passage of the seventeenth amendment to the Constitution in 1913. This was the amendment which provided for the direct election of US Senators, as opposed to being chosen by the respective state legislatures.

The amendment itself was the work of an earlier generation of reformers who claimed that the old way of electing senators was corrupt. In passing this amendment however, they knocked away a critical institutional support of our federal system and removed the restraints from our otherwise limited national government. This ultimately gave rise to the modern reality of mega-million dollar Senate campaigns, for which candidates must constantly beg money from contributors and yes, special interest groups.

Popular election of senators could more rightly be referred to as “popular pandering”, as it results in senators pandering to the public with the public’s own money. A sort of perverse form of bribery.

Under the old system, a senator’s loyalty was to his respective state’s government and his job was to be a representative for its interests within the federal government. As it is now, without institutional representation of state governments, the federal government has essentially become the arbiter of its own power. Needless to say, it defines it as broadly and costly as possible.

Further, for those reformers interested in quelling the influence of special interests, it’s worthwhile to note that popular senate elections enhance and increase the opportunities for special interest money and involvement. Involving state legislatures in the election process on the other hand would, would add another filter between the special interests and the members of the Senate.

The sins of the present are rooted in the reforms of the past. In this case, our abandonment of the federal structure laid out by several dozen wise men in the summer of 1789.

The reformers who gave us direct election of senators are now succeeded by their political progeny which seek to “reform” the system of finance and lobbying that sprung up as a result of the earlier reform. Alas, a reformers job is never done.