The tsunami in Japan brings to mind the tsunami of money in politics that prevents getting anything done in Washington. In my last campaign in 1998 for re-election to the United States Senate, I had to raise $8.5 million. Eight and a half million dollars amounts to $30,000 a week, each week, every week, for six years. It's not just raising money the year before the election, but all six years. For this amount you have to travel the country and depend upon your colleagues and committees in Washington. You collect money for your colleagues so that the colleagues can help you when you're up for re-election.
Today, you have to buy the office. And the rich have the advantage. The Senator from New Jersey bought it with $60 million of his own money, and the Mayor of New York bought it with $70 million of his own money. I know the rich lady in California lost, but Jerry Brown, the winner, still had to substantially buy it.
The concerted effort to raise money now controls the Senator's time and vote. You might not have many farmers in your state, but you can't risk voting against agriculture. The Midwest farmers will call the farm leadership in your state and finance your defeat. That's why no one opposed the billions of agriculture subsidies included in the New Orleans-Katrina bill even though Katrina missed the Northwest. Oil, abortion, planned parenthood, gun control, free trade, etc., are ready to organize against you. When it comes to taxes, a majority of the Republicans are committed against taxes to Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform. We raised taxes without a single Republican vote in 1993 and the nation had eight years of the its best economy. We gave President Bush a balanced budget and "surpluses as far as the eye can see." When President Bush started cutting taxes, the Democrats joined in because they lost the Congress in 1994. Now both parties are playing the game of cutting taxes and not paying for government. As Vice-President Cheney said: "Deficits don't matter."
On February 27, 2001, President Bush boasted that his budget plan would pay off the national debt in ten years. Instead, he doubled the debt in eight years. Now President Obama has joined the tax cut follies adding $3 trillion to the debt. To understand this reckless conduct, one should realize that the federal government paid for the depression and all its wars for two hundred and twenty-five years before reaching a $5 trillion debt in 2000. President Bush doubled the debt to $10 trillion in eight years, and President Obama plans to add another $5 trillion in four years.
Fundraisers are being held in Washington at breakfast, lunch, and dinner. We have fundraisers on weekends somewhere in the country or in one's state. The Senate schedule has been adjusted for fundraising. We never had a break for St. Patrick's Day or Columbus Day, but now we have fundraising breaks for St. Patrick's Day, Easter, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, the month of August, Labor Day, and Columbus Day. On Washington's Birthday some junior Senator would read Washington's farewell address at noon and we'd have debates and votes in the afternoon. Now we have merged Lincoln's and Washington's birthdays into a ten-day break so that we can go to California or New York for fundraising. Policy committee luncheons are canceled to make calls for money. The majority of one's time in the Congress is spent on the needs of the campaign rather than the needs of the country.
I remember one evening the Republicans had a fundraiser downtown for my opponent, and every Republican on my Commerce Committee except Senator Ted Stevens attended. When I learned this, I felt that "if they wanted to get rid of me, I wanted to get rid of them." The U.S. Senate is organized on a party basis, and the two political parties are collecting money against each other. This explains the partisanship.
We could dispel the tsunami of money in politics by limiting spending in elections like Congress did in 1971 and 1973. Maurice Stans was raising cash and threatening individuals with President Nixon's disfavor if they didn't pony-up. It looked like the presidency was up for sale. We limited spending by a substantial bi-partisan vote in both Houses of Congress, and President Nixon signed the Act. But in a 5-4 decision in Buckley vs. Valeo, the Supreme Court amended the first amendment to the Constitution. It equated speech with money. James Madison never intended for the freedom of speech to be limited or measured by money. A simple Constitutional amendment authorizing "Congress to regulate or control spending in federal elections" is needed to restore Madison's intent. Senator Specter joined me in a Constitutional amendment to control spending, and we received bi-partisan support, but never the two-thirds required for a Joint Resolution. I can hear Senator Specter arguing the case. He stated he had limited funds, but an affluent brother. His opponent was more than affluent, and Specter had a difficult time. His brother was ready, willing and able to match the opposition's financing, but in the distorted Buckley opinion contributors were limited but candidates were not. Rich candidates have free speech, but poor and middle class candidates' speech is limited. And today contributors' speech is limited, except corporations, which can buy the election. The Governors' Conference asked that I amend my proposal to include state elections. So I have no doubt of the states' approval of this Constitutional amendment.
A Constitutional amendment authorizing the Congress to regulate or control spending will eliminate the tsunami of money in politics. Then the influence of lobbyists would be limited; partisanship would be limited; the control of Congress would be limited, and Congressmen and Senators would have time to deliberate, talk to each other, and take care of the needs of the country.
Bill Moyers and Michael Winship: NPR: The Saga Continues
Making pledges to a lobbying group just to assure election funding has got to be un-patriotic, doesn't it?
As a former constituent, I thought you served the people well and were respected even by those that did not vote for you. You were also accessible to us.
But it was a different time in America. It was time when Republicans and Democrats could compromise on bills. We didn't have mass communication that we have now. Campaign spending has gotten out of control and the people are not being properly represented by members of Congress that are constantly campaigning. Clearly, something must be done. But how do you convince a legislative body to change what suits them best? There's only one way.
Vote them out of office until they change their ways.
Better yet, make this an issue through populism before the next election season.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=660563n&tag=related;photovideo
I agree with you very much, these guys know how things work, and once they are out of office can speak their minds, so the info is good. It is that I also find it something of a cop out, at the same time. It is a version of "Do as I say, not as I do."
We elect them based on their ability to raise money for their respective party.
Then we wonder why we got problems?
Neither major party has ANY interest, or sees any benefit in fixing a broken system. They both make far too much money off of it.
That says it all.
Well, come on. The money valuation of all values is so deeply embedded in our national political culture, no amount of money can reverse that valuation. The Supreme Court was only following the herd over that ridge down into the moral and ethical degeneration to which our has followed its celebrities over the decades.
Why not try to learn from Jefferson and others over the years to address the degeneration of the quality of representation, in both houses of the national, and in every level of subordinate government?
Why not begin with the question: what kind of representation can deliver an individual citizen's voice into public deliberations that matter to that citizen? What will it require for us to begin pilot projects to create exploratory programs with this goal in mind, around the country, so we can eventually bring our senators' and congress members' and assembly members' and every other publicly elected representative, local, state, and national, representative's feet back down to earth, the specific piece of earth they claim to represent, grounded there by the demands of their own constituents?
Too many of us know that without a dramatic shift of emphasis on representation, resulting in actual citizens presenting their thoughts in public, everything else is foredoomed. It is too obvious.