Like a Whorehouse

After teaching for 20 years at Columbia University, I chose to leave my tenured position there and move to The George Washington University. Since then, I have been asked (at least once too often): Why? Why did you move from such a prestigious university to a less distinguished institution? (Academics tend to care a great deal about this kind of pecking order, given that prestige is the main coin with which they are paid.) I made the move because I had become increasingly interested in the ways public policy is made on the national level. And, I soon learned that if you hang around Washington, there are numerous dinners, lunches, book parties, seminars and such in which you run into appointed officials and elected representatives. You can learn a lot at these sessions, and occasionally can plant a seed of an idea you care about. In short, I never regret the move to DC.

During these informal, social and often off-the-record meetings, I got a feel for how legislation is increasingly 'sold to the highest bidder' -- i.e. to the lobbies that can contribute the most dough. I saw how lobbies lavished expensive junkets on members of Congress -- sending them to a golf tournament in Palm Springs (all expenses paid; first class tickets, of course) and to a tennis festival at Scottsdale, Arizona (ditto). Congressmen were outfitted with monogrammed fine leather suitcases, with a dozen rental cars sitting in the parking lots with keys in the ignition, just in case their wives or mistresses (all members that I saw presented with such trips were male) wanted to do some shopping. (There are now some limits on these junkets but they are easy to circumvent). But, these luxuries were chicken-feed compared to the cash donations that the legislators got for their election campaigns. While junkets and gifts sweeten the lifestyles of these elected officials, without oodles of money, they could not get elected or re-elected. In short, their job, power, and future all hinge on raising money.

Time and again at these after-hours encounters, I heard Congressmen, especially those who had recently retired, use the phrase "this place has become like a whorehouse". Members of Congress need to raise so much cash just to stay in office (most get re-elected) that they no longer simply wait to be paid off--they actively solicit. They hit on lobbies of various special interests with deep pockets, asking for donations, for higher donations than they gave last year, or for one more round in this election cycle. Anyone who believes that these lobbies dish out boatloads of cash without getting anything in return probably also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Three examples follow. Many more are available on the website of Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW).

Alaska's sole house member, Don Young (R) attended a fundraiser in 2005 that brought in $40,000 for his re-election campaign. The event was organized by a land developer who stood to gain substantially from the expansion of a certain highway in Alaska. The following year, Representative Young successfully directed $10 million (of U.S. tax payer dollars) towards the expansion of this highway -- right where this developer wanted it to go. This is in addition to the famous 'bridge to nowhere' that the same congressman has attempted to fund. (His daughter and son-in-law happen to own substantial property in this particular 'nowhere'.)

Down the coast a ways, California representative Jerry Lewis (R., former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee) approved hundreds of millions of dollars in federal projects for the clients of a particular lobbying firm. Meanwhile, the firm, its partners and their spouses contributed a total of $480,000 to Rep. Lewis' campaign committee between 2000 and 2005.

Lest you think otherwise, the case of Democrat anti-war champion John Murtha (D, Pennsylvania) should convince you that this is a truly bi-partisan issue. After working with Rep. Murtha on the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense for over a decade, a staffer founded a powerful defense lobbying firm in DC. In the 2006 campaign cycle, according to CREW, this firm (the PMA Group) and its clients contributed almost $300,000 to Murtha's campaign fund. Many of these clients have benefited directly from Rep. Murtha's position on the appropriations committee; in 2006 their companies received a total of 60 earmarks, worth a combined $95.1 million.

I leave it to economists to figure out why members of Congress sell out so cheaply, acting more like street walkers than call girls. (After all, you would expect whoever delivers the goods to get at least a 10% return, a cut that even a back-alley, unreliable fence can demand). Maybe this is the case because the competition among the whores is so intense.

There is only one way out of this problem. It is a way which -- I am the first to admit -- the majority of Americans do not care for: public financing of elections. It is an idea long advanced by Senators McCain and Feingold among others. It is also promoted by Common Cause . Those who fear that public financing of elections would stick tax payers with an extra burden -- the cost of the 2004 election cycle, according to some estimates, ran as high as $4 billion--should note that if public financing would kill even just a few of the special favors that Congress now dishes out to farmers, oil companies, pharmaceutical corporations among others, the net outcome on the public balance sheet would be very favorable indeed.

For those who doubt that elections can be cleaned up, a visit to the UK is in order. Election campaigns there last weeks rather than years, which, in itself, leads to a greatly reduced cost. Every candidate who qualifies receives a very modest financial allotment, as well as a certain chunk of time on the public airwaves. Those who spend more are denied their seat in parliament and the executive director of the campaign goes to jail. Furthermore, there is far less motivation for lobbies to make deals with individual members of the parliament because most votes are along party lines; that is, the decision of what to support is not up to individual members of the legislature but to their collective deliberations and caucuses.

Frankly I see no way to convince my fellow citizens of the need for a radical change in the ways elections are financed. I hence fear we will continue to get the best government money can buy; best for those with the deepest pockets.

Amitai Etzioni is University Professor at the George Washington University and, most recently, the author of Security First: For A Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy (Yale, 2007).
www.securityfirstbook.com

Comments

[FogBelter]

Mr. Etzioni, you have hit the nail on the head, sir.

If we were to have Public Financing of Elections, in conjunction with Media outlets being Mandated to provide free equal time to candidates running (that is within the right of the American People to demand since we allow them the right to operate through licensing), there would be multiple benefits.

First, the likelihood that the candidates would spend less time courting lobbyists and more time speaking with the constituents in their Districts and States that sent them to Washington in the first place.

Secondly, they wouldn't be beholden to special interests financing their election bids so not only would their need to be prostitutes be reduced, it would actually be easier to prosecute elected officials for graft and corruption since the excuse of needing lobbyist money for elections would be gone and any extras they show up with would be direct implication of criminality.

Thirdly, having more time to do their job of legislating, and not having the pressure of special interest sponsors ... the practice of turning over the drafting of legislation to lobbyists could be eliminated ... thereby creating more legislation that is actually beneficial to the constituents that honor them with the opportunity to serve.

There are probably many other positive points to having Public Financing of Elections, but these were the first that really struck me as important

But here is the rub, Mr. Etzioni, the Catch 22 if you will.

I am certain there are many elected officials who like being pampered and powdered by lobbyists, and Special Interests ... They like their Junkets to Saipan to have illicit sex with captive women of the Third World duped into servitude by American Companies ... it's fun for them!

Likewise, the Lobbyists and Special Interests like to have their whores on Capitol Hall dutifully monitoring their Blackberry's in anticipation of their next spin in the bamboo basket.

So, how do you change this system? Are the Whores going to vote to Change it? Will their Pimps allow them? That, Mr. Etzioni ... is that Catch 22.

[charon]

The SCOTUS declared money to be a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. And that is basically a whore's concept--money talks. And, it means the wealthy have a far greater say in our country about politics than the rest of us.

I prefer Bob Dylan's idea: Money doesn't talk, it swears.

[OckhamsElectricRazor]

Sluts is more appropriate. There is a dollar threshold to be call whores.

[SD61]

The real irony is that, to even introduce a bill for election reform would require massive lobbying efforts, backed by megabuck contributions to unscrupulous politicians.

Imagine luring the fox who guards the henhouse outside with offers of Kentucky Fried chicken, and then telling him he'll be limited on the amount of live hens he gets to poach back at the office.

It would take one stupid fox to agree to those terms. Lucky for America, politicians aren't elected on the basis of their IQ... so it has a finite chance of working.

[gulopartisan]

This reform is about as likely as the other reform we could use: public execution of CEOs convicted of financial shenanigans, one hour after conviction. Now there's a demographic where capital punishment would be a deterrent.

Meantime, just clean up the condoms and needles politicians leave on our national lawn, enjoy the occasion flameout, and get on with life. Like cockroaches, the rich are always around here somewhere.

[DemandTruth]

Well I, for one, am going to do something about it right NOW. In THIS election cycle. I am going to buck the broken system we already have right NOW.

I am going to vote for John Edwards. He's the only candidate who - right now - doesn't take money from lobbyists and special interests. He's told them, and he's told me that he won't be beholden to them if he wins. He will fight for me and you and NOT big corporations and special interests - right NOW. Not years from now but right now.

That's how I'm going to make a difference.

[avergejoe]

it seems that most of the whores are cross-dressers as well.

the sad part is that are not whoring their vote, but our future.

[esl]

One of my senators and my representative (both Democrats) got about $6 million in earmarks for a very rich man who is a personal friend of Bush Sr. and Jr., owner of a company that provides MREs to the military, and is on the board of a major coal company. I've tried to get some watchdog groups to investigate and I've written to the local newspaper but nothing comes of my efforts.

[wadenelson1]

I think I'm gonna throw up.

After that I'm going to email this article to a dozen friends.

[Kirby]

And one Lobby Group in particular, AIPAC, claims on its behalf for increase in membership monies, that it interviews all political candidates at least three times before decisions in its organization are made for supporting a particular candidate. All this for a foreign government!

[researcher]

the real reason we are in trouble is we have allowed a believe that capitalism left unchecked will solve all of our problems.

we are declining as a nation and want to blame the politicans without looking for the root cause of our problems.

capitalism left unchecked will give you exactly what we have now. an imperialist politicans for sale mentality.

[GKJames]

By virtue of this being common knowledge for some time now, one has to assume that the majority continues to approve of the status quo. The question is what are the rest of us to do?

[leftbehind2000]

They're just a reflection of the electorate.

If you don't believe Democratic voters are ready to sell out, just go over to the article regarding Bloomberg and Hagel running as Independents.

The number of Dems that said they'd vote for them if they ran will make you ill.

[politicky]

"For those who doubt that elections can be cleaned up, a visit to the UK is in order. Election campaigns there last weeks rather than years, which, in itself, leads to a greatly reduced cost. Every candidate who qualifies receives a very modest financial allotment, as well as a certain chunk of time on the public airwaves."

*sigh*

sounds like heaven

[jdm58]

Sad times for America. Edwards clambors for election contribution reform, but perhaps term limits for Congress should also be explored. I know we'll lose long time champions like Kennedy, but maybe we'll gain some fresh ideas?