A Closer Look Here, There and Everywhere
by Trish PurcellThe wonderful people we send to Washington to represent us are so pure, so lacking in human frailties, they cannot be influenced by campaign contributions or their private investment interests. Despite receiving millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the health care industry and despite their personal investment portfolios with these companies, they are not influenced to vote for the interests of the industry. Just ask them, they'll tell you. Never since Christ walked the earth have we seen such examples of unadulterated goodness.
Max Baucus (D-Montana) is an example of this goodness. As head of the Senate Finance Committee he is working very hard (we are told) on health care reform. Baucus, who was sent to Washington to represent the people of Montana, is willing to give away the public option but insists on having a bipartisan plan. We all agree, don't we, that bipartisanship takes precedence over getting real health care reform? Within Montana, 47 percent of the public supports creating a "public health insurance option," while 43 percent oppose it. Looking closer at the numbers, almost one-quarter of Republicans (23 percent) support a public plan. Forty-eight percent of independents and 78 percent of Democrats support the public option. So one wonders, what Montanas is he representing? Could the $3.9 million in health and insurance company money that he has received caused him to represent their interests instead of those of Montanas? Oh! I forgot, he is so pure and lacking in human frailties, he cannot be influenced by contributions - just ask him - though this seems to be a conflict of interests it couldn't be. Not for Saint Baucus
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is another case in point. As ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee he is supposed to be negotiating a bipartisan health care reform plan. At the same time he is using his stance against health care reform in his 2010 re-election materials. How do you stand against and negotiate for a thing simultaneously? Grassley represents Iowans but 56% of them support a public option and he calls it a "deal breaker." He used a Lewin group study to support his opposition but when told that Lewin is a subsidiary of a big health care company he said "I didn't know that." Shouldn't he know that if he is using them as a source for his opposition? You don't suppose that the $2.9 million he has received from health and insurance companies could be influencing his decision do you? Of course not! This good God-fearing man is above such human frailties. He wouldn't allow mere money to influence him - just ask him - no matter how it looks, we just have to believe he is too pure, too good to ever put money before his duty to Iowans.
Baucus and Grassley are not alone in their saintliness. There are others who also, contrary to appearances, do not have an allegiance to the health care industry. The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) has found that legislators hold significant investments in pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Amgen. "Nearly one in four current members of Congress invested some money in health companies during 2007, the most recent year CRP calculated lawmakers' extensive personal finances." Through 2008 - the most recent year for which any lawmakers filed this information - many congressional members' personal funds were also invested in big-time insurers Aetna, UnitedHealth Group and Metlife, among others. We must give thanks that all these legislators are such good men and women and loyal representatives of the people that they do not allow their investments to influence their decisions.
In a July 9, 2009 article, the Washington Post pointed out that 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress have been hired by insurers, hospitals and medical groups to lobby against health care reform. We know that our saintly representatives will not be diverted from their pledge to work for the good of the people by allowing the access and influence of their former colleagues to affect their commitment to passing real health care reform.
Time and time again legislation that would have served the common good has been delayed, diluted, and defeated. But our elected representatives assure us that they are not influenced by money and lobbying by former colleagues. In that case how is it that the corporations repeatedly profit at the expense of the people? Are our representatives saintly but stupid? Too inept to write good legislation? Too confused to understand the consequences of the bills they pass? I don't think so!
And for once we need to get off our duffs and let it be known that we will not tolerate betrayal on this issue. No empty threats, just a promise. The promise that any Democrat who does not support health care reform including a public option, will find us crossing state lines with our dollars and our activists to campaign against them when they come up for re-election.
Then we need to go to work on public financing for all elected officials. That is the only way we will get special interest money out of our elections and out of our government.
Trish, did you really mean this? "Then we need to go to work on public financing for all elected officials. That is the only way we will get special interest money out of our elections and out of our government."
If you mean that public financing would be the source of all funds for conducting campaigns for election or reelection, wouldn't this leave even more money available from big corporations to be used to smother officials with riches AFTER they are elected? The big corporations would no longer need to donate to candidates of both parties to make sure they're riding the winning horse. They can just wait until the race is over and put all their money on the winner. I would have loved those odds when I used to go to the tracks.
Hasn't it become common practice to try to win a powerful seat in government for the perks it provides? And didn't someone once say you can't legislate honesty?
Yep. That’s what I meant. I start from the premise that there is no way to totally fix the inevitable brokenness of endeavors that depend on human honesty. Still it seems imperative to strive for the ideal while guarding against an expectation of perfection.
Public funding would free politicians from the fundraising cycle that takes up so much of their time. It would allow them the time and freedom to write and pass laws that serve the interests of the people without the pressure of needing to satisfy special interest contributors.
If special interests then tried to “smother officials with riches” it would be obvious bribery making it prosecutable, and making them impeachable and unelectable. The “common practice” of entering politics for the perks would become less common as the acquisition of perks became more difficult. It might even result in more qualified and honest people running for public office; people who wouldn’t run now because of the muck they would have to wallow in to be part of the Washington scene.
An often voiced objection to public financing – the increased cost to taxpayers – is actually a myth. It would not cost as much as the laws congress passes favoring special interests are costing us now.
Full public financing of elections, or Clean Elections, is already law in Maine, Arizona, New Mexico, North Carolina, New Jersey, Vermont, and Connecticut where even Republicans support it. Some kind of public financing is either in place or pending in many more states across the country. It may have to become law in more states before it can be taken federal. But, yes, I do feel it is our best chance to fix our broken government.
Trish: Again my cynicism prevents me from swallowing this thing you wrote:
"Public funding would free politicians from the fundraising cycle that takes up so much of their time. It would allow them the time and freedom to write and pass laws that serve the interests of the people without the pressure of needing to satisfy special interest contributors."
One of the people from history who intrigues me is Thomas Paine who is credited with much of the rhetoric which lead to Washington's success in winning the Revolutionary War. And you know where his belief in the goodness of people in politics, like Washington, landed him. In jail. Yep, self interest brings out the worst even in the best.
Here are a couple of examples of people who were elected in state public financing campaigns.
There are many more. If you are interested you can go to publiccampaign.org and click on the link for Learn more about clean elections and then on the link for Profiles in Clean Elections,. Yes, they are politicians and it could all just be happy talk, but maybe not.
Years ago we had a friend. A young man who was brilliant, had a medical degree and a law degree and really wanted to work to make a better world. He decided the best way to change things was to go into politics and he actually got elected. After about a year, he resigned. He said, you have to become what you are fighting to get anything done. He did go on to help people with his expertise in both medicine and law but he never considered politics again. Perhaps with a group of other people who are also idealistic, and who now might have the possibility of getting elected through public financing, the good guys could out number the bad guys.
As I said, I do not expect anyone or anything to reach perfection, only to strive for it. There will always be some who will try to benefit themselves instead of the people they are elected to serve. I am more than old enough to have been disappointed and sometimes even disillusioned for a time. But I believe that most (not all but most) human beings have an innate inclination to do the right thing. Admittedly, they do not always follow that inclination but the more temptations, such as special interest money, removed from their path, the more likely they will follow it. Not everyone, not always, not perfectly. But some, sometimes, as well as they are able.
I think, since I am still an optimist at this age, I probably always will be. Not a bad thing. I still believe there are things we can do to make a difference in the world. And that is important because it is the world my children, grandchildren, and now even a great-grandchild, will have to live in long after I am gone.