Posted on 04/26/2015 7:07:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
You are going to hear a lot about money in politics in the coming year and a half. Not just the amounts of donations to various campaigns and Super PACs, but about the very concept of money in politics.
It’s evil, they’ll say. It’s corrupting. But it’s not, not even a little. Hillary Clinton, laughably, made her call to limit “dark money” known long before the Clinton Foundation admitted it had to refile at least five years’ worth of taxes because of a failure to disclose millions in “donations.”
But money is necessary for candidates to get out their message. Even advocates for public financing of campaigns admit this. They just don’t like the sources of that money.
But the problem with the sources tends to be political. If you disagree with the position of a person or a company, you generally will see the money as corrupting. It’s akin to the word “lobbyist.”
Dictionary.com defines “lobbyist” as “a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest.” But in popular culture and the media, the word is a dirty synonym for corruption.
Movies portray lobbyists as slimy people who bribe public officials to advance their often evil agenda, and sometimes that is the case. Yet most of what lobbyists actually do is much less nefarious.
But when people use the word “lobbyist” in a negative way, what they are really saying is the person advocates for a position with which they disagree. If they do agree, then the person is called not a lobbyist but an advocate.
Businesses have “lobbyists;” environmental groups have “advocates.” They both want the same thing – government money, favorable laws or regulations that hurt their competitors but not them. The only difference is one does so for profit, the other for a cause. Both groups make good livings off their work and command lots of money for candidates who help them.
There is no practical difference between entrepreneurs lobbying for subsidies for their companies and unions lobbying against “right-to-work” legislation. Both, if successful, end up with more money in their coffers than they otherwise would have had, and both offer money for candidates who support their ends.
That they would fight for their will to be imposed is not a surprise when you consider just how important and lucrative being on the “good side” of government is. Government controls not only the almost $4 trillion it spends annually, but has dominion, to one degree or another, over the entire economy.
Subsidies give money directly to industries and organizations; laws and regulations protect them from new or contrary competitors, and through the tax code they are all rewarded for government-favored behavior.
Money in politics isn’t the problem. With so much on the line, patronage will always find a way. The real problem is the politics in so much of the money.
A pile of money offered for action is only a pile of money. It becomes a bribe when it is accepted. People of good character not only will walk away from that money, they will turn in the person who made the offer for attempted bribery.
Our government lacks enough people of good character to not only walk away and turn in the offenders, but to work to limit the pool of power and money for which the bribe was made in the first place.
No, money isn’t the problem in politics, it’s a symptom. The problem is what was meant to be a constitutionally limited government allowed to do only a few specific things has grown into a leviathan picking winners and losers, breathing life into or sucking it out of whatever it looks upon favorably or unfavorably at any given time.
Removing or limiting political donations won’t fix that problem. It won’t stop government largess from seeping into aspects of Americans’ lives in which it is constitutionally forbidden.
Sunlight is the only way to illuminate “dark money,” as the Clinton family is learning. And there are unlimited shadows created by an ever-expanding government. If you want money out of politics, get politics out of money. Unfortunately those shadows are why many people get into politics in the first place. Especially, it seems, those who rail against it the loudest.
Transparency is always needed, but we always get less of it. I favor body cameras and microphones on all of those in Congress so we can see the deals and favors that the few get, while the many get the bill.
I favor body cameras and microphones on all of those in the senate they are the real money persons.
When I said Congress I meant both Houses. They work for us and we really need to verify what they are doing. The Party leaders are the real problem because they do not care what the people think or want. Illegal immigration is proof.
If I could afford to donate $200K and get back $200M in contracts it’s a good deal, and as they say - they are cheap dates and will sell us out on the cheap. My takes is get the money out of politics, and then all Americans, unions and CEOs can express their freedom by spending their time working for them going door to door, and they will get no special priviledges on our dime. The media loses out because their gravy train ends.
Get the money out of politics out of their hands sounds great but we know that will never happen because it’s why they get into the business the day of the statesman is limited it’s a sad note but true plus you add in the MSM we end up with little say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
