Drop the Sieves of Sisyphus and Push for Clean Money Elections

A few people on the Hill actually understand what most Americans outside the beltway know already: all the debates about this or that change in traveling on corporate jets, closing the revolving door, lowering lobbyists gifts, and better reporting are all fine and dandy, but ultimately, they won't change the culture of corruption that has totally engulfed Washington, because even if the tightest rules and limits were placed on each (unlikely) and enforced (another question), we can be confident that the lawyers and lobbyists who make a living at this shell game will find a way to get around the restrictions.

Unfortunately, too few in Washington are willing to admit this and drop the Sisyphean game of "plug the holes in the sieve, one by one" and begin to push for the simplest, most obvious reform: Clean Money Elections (public financing).

But there are a few, including Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and David Obey (D-WI), who told Roll Call that if Congress continues to dick around with these details it "is going to come down to who's got the tighter limits on trips, or who's got the tighter limits on meals. With all due respect, I don't care what happens with either one of those."

The real issue according to Obey? The source of campaign funds: "In general elections, there should not be a dime of private money."

(The Washington Post also reported the story on Friday, but only online.)

Why is this not getting coverage? For one reason, right now, apart from Public Campaign, it doesn't appear that many lobby reform groups have made this a priority. A few are calling for a commission to study the issue.

Look -- if it's good idea -- and we know it is (e.g. look at the precedents established for presidential elections and set by various states, including Maine (2000), Arizona (2000), Connecticut, New Mexico and cities like Portland) then why study it any more? Why not get someone to introduce a bill and push everyone in Congress to endorse it or it will be an issue in the elections!

Of course,
- We all want to break the nexus between lobbyists and and lawmakers.
- We all want to close the revolving door.
- We all want an air-tight ban on gifts.
- We all want to stop our Reps from calling Enron and Philip Morris to get a quick charter flight home.
- We all want better disclosure and better enforcement when lobbyists and members break the rules (through an office of public integrity or some other independent, nonpartisan body).

But we need a LOT more than that.

And until someone draws a big, simple, fat line like "clean money elections," the reform game will be a partisan chess match and inside-the-beltway discussion among people who have made it their career to try to fix the problem through a raft of clever and byzantine rules. (More work for the lawyers!)

The danger is that the two parties will agree on one bill which includes these various provisions, package it in some nice language (just like Arthur Levitt wants, a Congressional Sarbanes-Oxley), and call it a day.

The ones who should be most worried are the Dems. That's because if they don't step out with something bold (and when you think about it, this is not that big a deal), come November, they'll lose again. That's because, as the Washington Post reported in a poll released last week, 73 percent of Americans can't tell the difference between the two parties when it comes to corruption.

Of course, we all know that when it comes to what started this stuff -- Abramoff and DeLay, etc. -- there is a difference. Abramscam is not "bi-partisan." After all, the Dems don't have the same K Street political machinery that the Republicans do. (Despite the best efforts of party operatives like Terry McCauliffe and Rahm Emmanuel.)

And even there the differences may soon be less stark -- Jeff Birnbaum reports that after being Jack-Hammered, the K Street Project is cracking up.

So what now? If the Dems don't take up the initiative started by Obey, Frank, and Rep. John Tierney D-MA), Congress will continue to be run like a job-retention syndicate to voters who can't see any difference between how incumbents on both sides of the aisle play the game.