The lobbyists in Washington have taken over our government. The desperate need for volumes of money needed today to be elected to office permits the takeover. This week's Nation magazine reports Montana's "Baucus kicked off his 2008 re-election campaign by bluntly asking 50 lobbyists to raise $100,000 each." An article in this week's Time magazine entitled "Tight budgets favor lobbyists" tells how lobbying spending in 2000 was $1.6 billion and last year increased to $3.5 billion.
To be elected the seventh time to the United States Senate in 1998, I had to raise $8.5 million -- which factors out to raising $30,000 a week, each week, every week, for six years. It's not just raising money the year ahead of election. It's all six years. This was 12 years ago. In South Carolina today, it would take $10 million or more. Every waking moment of every member of Congress is focused on fundraising.
We used to have a freshman senator read Washington's Farewell Address on his birthday (February 22nd), and then have debate and votes in the afternoon. Now Lincoln's birthday (February 12th) has been merged with Washington's for a 10-day break to go to California and New York to fundraise. President Obama started his $1 billion campaign last Friday in Chicago and spent the weekend in California fundraising. Congress now has taken a two-week break to fundraise. Congress has breaks every month to fundraise and more time is spent in Washington fundraising than on the people's business. Filibusters are popular because one senator from either side can hold the floor and the rest of the senators can go fundraise. Before I left the Senate in 2005, we were canceling policy committee lunches so senators could go to their party headquarters for two hours to call for money. The senator used to call the leader's office to get a sense of when a vote was going to be called. No more. Now you call a lobbyist on K Street to learn not only when a vote is to be called, but usually he can tell you the outcome before the vote. The lobbyists have taken over the government.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said: "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society." Everybody is for civilization or government. But Grover Norquist of the Americans for Tax Reform has 41 senators and 195 congressmen pledged against taxes or paying for government. This week's Newsweek has an article entitled: "Government is broken. These guys can fix it." Then the article details 20 solutions of 20 outstanding Americans. None of the solutions will become law. Reason? No solution mentions money. No solution mentions lobbyists. Lobbyists can block almost everything. That's why we almost had a close-down of government.
Few realize that Congress has already voted the solution to this takeover. In 1971 and 1973 Congress was embarrassed with the fundraising shenanigans of Maurice Stans for Nixon. Stans made it appear that the Congress was up for sale (now is). In 1973, a bipartisan majority of senators voted to limit spending in campaigns. Strom and I were limited to so-much per registered voter, or $386,000. Fast forward for increased costs and inflation, $4 million to $5 million would be a proper limit to be elected in South Carolina, not the $10 million or more required today. But the Supreme Court in the per curiam 5-4 decision of Buckley vs. Valeo set aside the 1973 Act. In a distorted opinion, the Court limited the contributor not the candidate, making the rich candidate have the upper hand for election. Now the Court has given a corporation free speech. James Madison never intended a corporation to have free speech and certainly never intended that free speech be measured or limited by money. We can restore Madison's intent in his First Amendment to the Constitution by passing a Joint Resolution authorizing Congress to limit or control spending in federal elections. Five of the last seven amendments to the Constitution deal with elections, and this is more important than any of the five.
We've tried solutions for 30 years, but McCain-Feingold didn't work, and public finance will never work because states would balk at equalizing the poor candidate for the rich. It would have cost New Jersey $62 million, over $100 million in California, and $70 million for the City of New York. Moreover, the last thing that Congress should start is a new spending program for politics. I introduced a Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution authorizing Congress to regulate or control spending in federal elections. The Governors' Conference called in the '80s to include the states in my Resolution, which I did. I received a bipartisan majority vote for passage, but not the two-thirds vote required for a Joint Resolution. Washington can solve this problem in a New York minute, but House Members and Senators have the advantage of an office and time in Washington to work with the lobbyists, and the president has the rest of this year and next year to raise $1 billion.
Years ago, a friend observed: "Fritz, you've got an impediment in your speech." Thinking of my Charleston accent, I asked: "What impediment?" He answered: "The trouble with you is you can't listen." Limiting spending in campaigns would give the senator time to listen. Lobbyists and special interests would be limited. Monthly breaks for fundraising could be canceled. There would be time to debate rather than fundraise. The vote would not be fixed long before the roll-call. We could have policy meetings again. The fraud of filibusters would cease. Members could come off the fundraising treadmill and serving in Congress would again become enjoyable -- a learning experience. And the people would recoup their government.
1) term limits - a career in politics was unfathomable to the founding fathers. Now we consider becoming an elected official reaching the american dream.
and
2) publically financed elections - media is so omnipresent today that candidates don't need to fund raise. Between the TV, internet and free publications one can easily spread the word about their candidacy. Every race should have a set number of televised debates and all third party candidates should be welcomed and given even air time.
At this point, it's not that the Government IS for sale...it's that the Government has be SOLD. Norquist's financiers should be giving him a bonus for a job well done. And then they can drop him like a hot potato since he's accomplished "his" goal.
If a candidate wanted more air time or more public exposure, they'll be courted by news outlets, anyway, and that would be interview time and not part of targeted campaign messages.
Ultimately, I think that shorter campaigns, donated (but limited) airtime, and limiting the number of campaign-sponsored messages would go a long way to help out the problem. Presidential campaigns go on for 18 months, and senatorial campaigns can go for a year, which is far too long, and requires far, far too much fund raising to accommodate.
What difference does it make how much money is spent on elections?
If the lobbyists cannot pay their bribes up front, they will pay it on the back end when the politician leaves office.
Who doesn't think the Obamas', who are relatively young, won't be worth at least 200 million dollars if they live to their expected life expectancy? Most of it will come from the alliances made with lobbyists and special interests they made deals with, during their tenure in the White House.
If there is no money or tax code available for the lobbyists to steal or manipulate in their favor (GE paid no taxes), the reason for lobbyists cease to exist. Senator Hollings' solution does not eliminate the reason why most lobbyists exist.
Get rid of the tax code and replace with a flat tax, or a VAT based on gross GDP (no deductions), together with a balanced budget amendment that mandates no deficit spending or stealing from Social Security Surplus, etc. That will force Congress and the 'People' to deal with the realities of limited, fixed funds, and force them to make the tough decisions that need to be made.
When Congress passed the 16th Amendment 98 years ago, they enacted the income tax. At that point, We the People ceded more power to Congress than at any other time in our history.
It was a bad idea then, and it’s a bad idea now. Even Congress and the President recognize it. The President recently asked Congress to make tax reform a priority, and Congress is holding hearings right now. But they don’t want to include the FairTax in those hearings. They recognize the FairTax will be the single greatest transfer of power from the government back to the People since the Declaration of Independence.
The problem with our current national political landscape is this. We know that lobbyists are running the show in DC. We know we need campaign finance reform and term limits. How can we, as citizens, make changes in Washington that our elected representatives will not do?
Well, we can all see the conflict of interest. Under the present system, there will be no changes or reform because Congress has gone from being an institution of public service to a corporate market place where members of Congress are available to the highest bidder.
When you were in your early years of office, Senator, both parties could compromise and work together. Most of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, did represent the interests of the people that voted them into office. It was considered an honor to represent people in your district and it probably was good to know that the work that you achieved in Congress put the people first.
But that's all changed. Congress is filled with political opportunists now. Campaign spending and unethical and uncivil conduct has gotten out of hand.
In order for Americans to take back their country, we should reform Congress by national referendum. The citizen should have a stake of control in their government through the vote, including a "no confidence" vote placed on a national referendum.
It says that "all civil officers ... shall be removed from office ... (for) ... bribery ..."
Bribery.
The oldest crime in the book. The very thing that had King Neb getting himself drunk-as-a-skunk in Babylon, surrounded by gold coins as Darius the Meade walked in a gladly-opened front gate. The thing that destroyed the Roman Senate.
Our Constitution omits a lot of things that we have never, as a nation, gotten around to adding to it. "Corporations" are not even mentioned. The role of "contributions" should indeed be made more clear. And so on.
But what we have right now is Bribery. It cannot be called anything else. And we are living with its desperate consequences, even as the people of the nations who surround us are moving on with their lives and destinies without us.
So the solution is to change the legal standards for what constitutes proof of bribery.
If I shoot someone and they die, then it becomes MY responsibility to prove that I DIDN'T commit murder. So if:
1) An individual or corporation wants something done and they give money to a politician, and
2) The politician does what their donor wants, then
3) It becomes the politician's responsibility to prove that the donation WASN'T a bribe.
We can set a reasonable amount, perhaps $200, for donations that wouldn't be subject to this standard.
Article 2 Section 4 also is clear in the fact that it puts 'bribery' side-by-side with 'treason' and clearly states that the convicted offender shall be bound over to the courts for prosecution.
We know well what money can do to a person. We must flush it out of our state houses.
And then there's the inside-the-beltway media who won't even CONSIDER reporting on how the way members of Congress vote is usually parallel to the interests of their biggest donors.
Liberals need to get over their hesitation to use the word BRIBERY when we're talking about government reform.
"With all of this discussion of the cost of campaigns, why does nobody ever mention the RECIPIENTS of all of this money. The media companies makes an absolute fortune off of the election process by charging for ad space - on airwaves that belong to the American People."
I made a suggestion that we should have national referendums to allow the voters to vote in campaign finance reform and term limits because for Congress to vote on these issues would be a conflict of interest. I also suggested that American voters be allowed to vote "no confidence" in a national referendum. Also that we, as citizens, should have a stake in the power of Congress we could call for new elections as voters and citizens.
Unlimited money with no accountability? No truth in campaign advertising laws? I have read that when the Constitution was written................... every single state in the new union had laws on their books banning corporate involvement in politics at ANY level. What happened between then and now?
Instead of defunding public broadcasting, maybe it should be the venue of choice for political debate.
Taxation without representation once initiated a revolution. I submit that under our current system, only a very small percentage of the voters HAVE representation, those that pay for it.
How about just set a limit on campaign spending? For instance, $5 million and you're maxed out. You just stop...you're done. Everybody gets his $5 million and it's over and he spends the rest of the time actually working.
So why is anyone on the left listening to a former senator who uses the code of ' taking back our country' ??