Money in politics and the rotting of democracy

Don Wooten is one of the "good guys", so to speak, and in his recent editorial in the Dispatch/Argus regarding the corrupting influence of money in politics, displays the knowledge and common sense that has marked his career. Wooten should run for office again, but if he's not willing to sell himself to the highest bidder, how could he compete?

Corruption of politics today almost total

When I was first elected to the Illinois Senate, I got a call from an elderly constituent. He had some important advice for me: "Don, I know that politicians have to take money, but don't get too greedy. Just take a little."

In that and subsequent calls, I tried to reassure him that you could survive in politics without taking payoffs, but he remained unconvinced. I thought his conviction bizarre back then, but time has proven his point.

The corruption of politics these days is almost total. Everyone in office spends an unseemly amount of time grubbing for money. With few exceptions, elections are won by the candidate with the biggest war chest. If you want to stay in office, it pays to be greedy.

I'm not talking about outright bribes, but campaign contributions. Yet even here, the line between bribery and financial support is a pretty thin one. In fact, it has almost disappeared.

The recent scandals in Washington involving superlobbyist Jack Abramoff have come to light only because they were so outrageous, so over-the-top, that they could not be ignored.

Yet the trading of money for votes goes on out of public view all the time. It’s not called that, of course, but that’s what it is. It is the rare lobbyist or political action committee that doesn’t expect a quid pro quo. If it isn’t forthcoming, there wll be no money next time around.

(I know this from experience. When some of my closest supporters wanted my vote for something I thought irresponsible, I withheld it -- and had to find contributions from other sources that year. The ill will that generated caught up with me in the next campaign.)

The Abramoff Affair tars both parties. Everyone is in the money chase. It just happened that Republicans were in the driver's seat when things got completely out of hand.

But now that dirty laundry is being aired, isn't it likely that some real reforms will be put in place? Don't be naive. The hard-charging head of the Abramoff prosecuting team has been kicked upstairs, making it fairly certain that the damage will be contained.

The new Senate majority leader is offering token, cosmetic "reforms," which means the same old money-vote circus will continue. It almost has to. Politicians are as much the victims as the offenders in this game. They can't get out unless the process is changed.

It can be done, but I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, however long that chances to be. It would take a political tsunami to break up a process which is understood, familiar, and functional. Even those who deplore the situation are afraid to alter the means by which they hold onto office.

Pessimists argue that it has always been like this and they have history on their side. Early on, members of Congress were openly bribed. In recent decadess ethical standards have risen a bit; only to be submerged once more in a tide of campaign funds given with "understandings."

What will it take to change things? There are three fundamental steps, all of them of roughly equal importance.

-- 1. Public financing of national campaigns and major state offices. The knee-jerk objection here is that it would be too costly, but that's a red herring. The present system costs us far more tax dollars than you could possibly spend in several election cycles.

The second objection is that just about any Jasper could run for office if public money were there to sustain him or her. Please tell me how the present system is any better at producing public servants.

-- 2. End political gerrymandering. Place redistricting in the hands of an objective, non-political body. That would make most districts competitive. Now it’s almost impossible to oust an incumbent of either party. And don’t think such a system is impractical; they do it now in Iowa.

It can be tough. It cost Davenport its favorite son in Congress, Jim Leach, admittedly a sore loss. But he is remains office in another district, where he is obliged to run a tough campaign every two years. That's not a bad discipline for any office-holder.

-- 3. Get television, radio, and cable advertising -- the principal consumer of campaign dollars -- under control. This is a tough one and here I am biting the hand that fed me through most of my career in commercial broadcasting. But the FCC could -- and should -- mandate a portion of free air time for public political use as a condition of holding a license.

Finally, if nothing else, revive the Fairness Doctrine. The overt slanting of news and talk shows today is unworthy of a true democracy. End it.

What do you think of Wooten's suggestions?