Money in politics

In California, like most everywhere else, a candidate usually can't get elected without money. Organizations like Follow the Money estimate that over $204 million has been contributed in the current election cycle, but that is based on incomplete information from candidates who ran in the June primary. By the time the elections in November 2010 are over, total contributions in California could be $450 million or more.

What does all that money buy? According to lobbyists, politicians, and the Democratic and Republican political parties, it buys either nothing or, at most, access to politicians so that special interests and their lobbyists can explain what it is they want. Everyone involved argues that campaign contributions do not buy votes. So, is that believable or not?

Is the money really just an innocent thing with no influence on policy, law or the public interest? Is that argument credible or not? Lobbyists and special interests can always talk to a politician without making a campaign contribution, assuming there is something important to talk about. Do special interests really pay hundreds of millions of dollars to get nothing more than a simple innocent meeting with a politician?

Pick up the phone and make 

an appointment, not a contribution

If nothing else, common sense says that campaign contributions buy votes and influence, regardless of how strenuously the involved parties deny it. If the money didn't work, it wouldn't be contributed. That is not rocket science. It is reality. However, according to the U.S. Supreme court, spending money on campaigns is protected free speech. With business as usual, nothing will change and money will continue to corrupt politics. That is another reality.

Believe it or not: Either you believe that scenario is mostly true or you don't. From the perspective of a political moderate grounded in reality, corruption of politics by special interest money is the reality. Who benefits more than needed? The special interest* paying the bills, of course. Who loses more than needed? Usually the public interest as argued in another post.

* Not all lobbyists and special interests are loaded with money and they cannot corrupt politics with cash. Many charities and social organizations have little or no money for politicians. They have to win their arguments mostly on the merits, which is fine. Unfortunately, that isn't the case for special interests with money - they influence their arguments with cash.

Why does it work out that way? Because that is how incentives align in politics. Special interests contribute money with few downsides and a lot of political or economic upside. Politicians need money for election and reelection, which is usually their top priority. That makes harvesting campaign contributions a higher priority than service to the public. In a fight between a moneyed special interest and the public interest, the public interest tends to get short changed.

Can it be fixed?

Probably not completely. Spending money is constitutionally protected political speech. A subsequent post will discuss one option, more transparency, that may blunt some of the raw power that special interest money has on California politics.