Culture Of Bribery in Congress
The Christian Science Monitor has an outstanding article on "A Culture of Bribery in Congress" in today's edition. This articles strikes one of the most important themes held, and written about, by staff and volunteers of the Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy organization. The Monitor opens their article with the following two paragraphs:
Almost every US lawmaker takes big money aimed at helping private interests win favorable government action. If they stash the cash for themselves, it's illegal. If they use it to get reelected, keep their job, and help the private interests, it's generally legal.
Either way, money still talks in Washington and the legal/illegal distinction gets easily blurred in all the backroom dealings with private interests until, that is, a brazen case of bribery pops up. Then Washington, if it had any sense, might ask if the laws and rules that regulate campaign donations and lobbyist gifts are tough enough or prosecutors are vigilant enough.
For these reasons and more, it is imperative that VOID succeed in reaching a few million voters to vote out irresponsible incumbents in 2006. Just a few million anti-incumbent votes will >alter our election landscape and force politicians to reassess what it is going to take to preserve their incumbency.
Read the full Christian Science Monitor article here, A Culture of Bribery in Congress".
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.voidnow.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/42
Comments
While I agree that something needs to be done about campaign financing I'm not sure of which soulution would be best.
That the current system isn't working is a gross understatment.
The thing I have against federally funded campaigns is when the Government gets involved it starts wanting to tell everyone what to do and how to do it. And what to say and not to say.
The problem with banning PAC, corporate, and special intrest contributions is they'll most likely just transfer funds to a private indivual who will make the contribution for them. They'll still own the politicians.
The best solution I see is to limit contributions to $100 per household. No PAC, corporate, or special intrest contributions. Even then these groups will be able to find a way around this.
Posted by: Ron Brown | December 3, 2005 2:10 PM
Ron, my personal take is that banning of PAC, corporate, and special interests contributions is unconstitutional. I don't want to see Americans lose the right to financially support their party or candidate of choice.
That is why I believe it is a matter of reeducating incumbents as to who holds the primary power over their reelection. Currently, they trade in a plurality of voters concerns for those of money contribution interests. We must reverse this by demonstrating to them that all the money in the world cannot save their reelection bid if they have not put the voters concerns and issues ahead of money interests. A growing swell of anti-incumbent voting statistics over the next couple of election cycles, I believe, will have that result.
Posted by: David R. Remer | December 4, 2005 1:28 PM
In addition, I would offer that campaign ETHICS guidelines should be enforced.
Posted by: steve smith | December 5, 2005 11:10 AM
Money in politics makes it rotten.
Limits are needed.
The Constitution allows regulation.
Government should not be FOR SALE.
Incumbents will never do this themselves.
They will never do anything to decrease their power unless forced to do so.
VOID can peacefully force them to do so, or be removed from office.
Also, perhaps The People should investigate ways to have irresponsible and unaccountable politicians recalled too?
Here's a plan that reduces the influence of big money in government, and gives reduces the unfair influence and advantage of some people and corporations that abuse vast weatlth and power to control government.
Posted by: d.a.n | December 5, 2005 12:11 PM
David
I don't want to see the people lose their right to financially support the canidate of their choise either. But I don't see where PAC, corporations, and special intrest are the people.
Your right though that educating our elected officials as to who their bosses realy are is the best way to to lessen the influence of big money.
Posted by: Ron Brown | December 5, 2005 12:31 PM
Ron,
As I sure you already know, the constitition currently won't allow a ban of political contributions.
But, government can regulate contributions.
Currently, 5% of the population has 60% of all wealth in the U.S., and 60% of the population only has 5% of all weatlh. It's not fair that a small percentage that abuse vast wealth and power can control government. No group should have such a large influence upon government.
Thus, the smart, legal, and constitutional thing to do is limit it to say 10% of the average American's annual income.
Thus, a very few don't have the biggest voice in government.
For example.
Posted by: d.a.n | December 5, 2005 2:35 PM