In two states, money is the root of political evil.
Not that its products are unsafe, but the Acme Co. would find it easy to make friends in the Missouri Legislature.
Regarding the revelation that FBI agents have been poking around the Missouri Capitol, looking into alleged “pay-to-play” schemes involving state legislators, we have but one question:
What took them so long?
Talk about your target-rich environments. Legislatures make policy governing the day-to-lives of citizens — cars, drivers licenses, highways, utility rates, professional standards, law and order, insurance, schools and dozens of other matters. Yet they are widely ignored by most citizens. This leaves the door wide open for special interests.
Professional lobbyists and lawyers often write the very bills that lawmakers debate. The lobby provides expertise that term-limited citizen-legislators can’t match. The lobbyists wine the legislators, dine them, laugh at their jokes and fund their campaigns. Which is where the problems starts.
According to The Kansas City Star, which broke the story about the FBI investigation, agents are looking into allegations that some lawmakers may have demanded campaign contributions in return for specific legislative actions. This is “pay-to-play,” the concept that made Rod Blagojevich the former governor of Illinois.
But bribery cases are tough to make. Prosecutors must prove a quid pro quo, a specific favor granted for a specific action. Without a paper trail or cooperating witnesses, these cases are difficult to prove.
Even so, the concept of campaign contributions for legislative action is so ingrained in the Legislature that it is discussed openly during debate. Last week, as the Missouri Senate debated a proposal that would let AmerenUE charge customers for the construction of a new nuclear plant, two Republican senators, Jason Crowell of Cape Girardeau and Kurt Schaefer of Columbia, attacked each other’s motives.
“Is Noranda [an aluminum smelting firm that is AmerenUE’s largest customer] paying you?” Mr. Schaefer asked.
“What’s Ameren paying you?” Mr. Crowell replied.
It’s not known whether the Ameren project is part of the FBI inquiry. The firm employs dozens of legitimate lobbyists, as well as political consultant Jeff Roe of Kansas City, who isn’t a registered lobbyist but has close ties to several GOP legislators. Similarly, Noranda employs former GOP House Speaker Rod Jetton, a political consultant who is not registered as a lobbyist, but has close ties to Mr. Crowell.
Under Missouri and Illinois campaign finance laws, it is common for politicians and their consultants to raise huge contributions, laundering them through state party committees or committees run by party leaders.
For example, the Acme Rocket Sled Co. could bundle $100,000, launder it through several leadership committees, with the tacit understanding it will go to legislators who support removing safety restrictions on rocket sleds. It happens. Proving it happens is something else.
Another problem: You can give only $2,400 in each election cycle to federal candidates. But if you give money to a committee for state candidates, it is difficult to tell when that money “accidentally” leaks out to candidates for federal office.
The Missouri Democratic State Committee seems to have special problems keeping its money straight. In six straight election cycles, state Democrats have been audited, fined or questioned by the Federal Election Commission about complying with the law.
In Illinois, Gov. Pat Quinn — Mr. Blagojevich’s successor — is proposing strict limits on campaign contributions. In part, this is because Attorney General Lisa Madigan, his presumed opponent in next year’s Democratic primary, had 40 times more money in her campaign fund at year’s end than he did.
Ms. Madigan, if she wants to be worthy of her reformist’s credentials, should sign onto Mr. Quinn’s request. And Missourians should demand that their lawmakers reimpose limits and close the party committee laundromat.
There are many flaws in the rules governing campaign contributions. Money gets laundered through PACs which often may be a single individual operating under some fancy name. The money may go through still other organizations before it gets to the PAC. Joe Doakes may decide he does not like a particular candidate. Doakes contributes money to the Wheresit County Community Improvement Association. That Association may then make a contribution to Hockey Moms for Truth (HMT). HMT may then buy advertising attacking the candidate. Note that the advertising is not for any particular candidate, it is simply attacking a particular politician. Has anyone violated a campaign finance law?
This is what happens when you have a professional political class. When politics becomes a career and people have to live on what it pays, especially at a state level, the temptations will become too great. People shsould serve and return the their plows.
Well, interestingly enough, MO has a citizen legislature. Many DO return to their plows. And, while they serve in the legislature, they pass legislation on the farming industry. And, some of that legislation might benefit them. And ethically, there is nothing wrong with having the expertise to know that a certain law would benefit farming in general, and then also have it affect you personally. It becomes ethically unsavory when a legislator passes a law that ONLY benefits him or herself. It is even conceivable that a former lobbyist could pass great legislation about lobbying standards because of that prior expertise.
This is a flaw of a representative democracy, and if you would seek to remove self-interest from politics then you would have to remove the “self” by turning to a more direct form of democracy.
However, complete transparency of donations achieves the same effect by holding representatives accountable to their constituents. Because of the vagueness of committees used to cushion donations, constituents have no way to judge whether their representative was acting based on their interests, or if another entity had bought his or her loyalty. They are unable to bring that information into a decision to re-elect.
The pay-to-play accusations, however, sit uneasily with me, because I haven’t seen a lot of substance to the claims that indicates anyone was operating outside ethics rules, or doing anything illegal. It would be just as unethical for this paper to repeat baseless accusations as truth (I don’t believe they have done that…but at what point does inference begin to look like fact?)
There is a difference between a farmer who becomes a legislator and a legislator who becomes a farmer. The latter, when term-limited out or when losing an election becomes the Director of Paper Clips for the state at $98,000 a year until he wins another election. The former goes back to being a farmer.
> In six straight election cycles, state Democrats have been audited,
> fined or questioned by the Federal Election Commission about
> complying with the law.
Funny how you folks never mention this BEFORE an election, when it might actually make a difference. I’m sure it will be completely forgotten by next summer.
Remove the incentive for corruption and by limiting government power and spending.
I’ve proposed an alternative solution to the campaign finance issue at http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/04/free-market-campaign-finance-reform.html
It is so sad that our leaders now accept what is bad as good and what is good as bad. They are so corrupted down to their very bones and have such sick heart and blind now they are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. Pretty sick state to be in and is why this country is in such a sick state.