Transparency versus money

The previous post argued that special interest money in politics works for the special interest. That can hurt the public interest. Those opinions are based on common sense. When a for-profit corporation acts, it is supposed to act in shareholder's best interests. Maximizing shareholder profit is the point of being a for-profit entity, regardless of what the public relations department might tell you.

Money - good, bad or neutral?

Given California's difficult situation and Californian's professed unhappiness with politics as usual, a reasonable question is whether the bad effects of money politics can be reduced. However, if you believe that the effect of money on politics is good or irrelevant, then the suggestions made here will not make sense. It all depends on your point of view. The view from the a new party perspective could be that money in politics is significantly more bad than good for the public interest and more good than bad for the special interest.

There is at least one low cost approach to reduce the power of special interest money in politics - more transparency. Obviously, that would face special interest opposition. Most state politicians, state bureaucrats, California political parties and at least some of the public would oppose it. Nonetheless, it is an option the courts probably would not overturn.

More transparency - sunlight disinfects

Increased transparency of how money and its lobbyists actually work would probably favor the public interest more than the special interest on most issues. Current law requires disclosure of donors, which is only some transparency that could be forced into politics. Doing more is possible. Lobbyists work with politicians in private and there is a good reason for that. Specifically, they do not want the public to know what they are saying, asking for or paying. That opinion is based on common sense. How many political outsiders have ever heard what went on in a meeting between a lobbyist asking for favors and a California politician? Probably very few.

Whose business is it - theirs or ours?

So, are special interest-politician meetings public or private business? When a lobbyist talks to a politician or government bureaucrat, it is mostly or exclusively public business. The typical lobbyist backed by for-profit special interest money wants something from the government or taxpayers, usually lower taxes, less regulation and/or less competition. Since taxpayers elect politicians to represent them, their business is public business, not private business with special interests or their lobbyists.

A nasty light, from their point of view: California politician or bureaucrat meetings and other communications with special interests or their lobbyists should be required to be made public. All meetings should be recorded and available to the public and the press. Once the public gets to see what really goes on, it is highly likely that what politicians or bureaucrats deliver will be much less biased in favor of the special interest. Sunlight disinfects rot.

Publicizing the business between politicians or bureaucrats and the envoys of special interest money isn't the only form of enhanced transparency that could be applied. Naming the entities and the dollar amounts attached to key pieces of legislation would further clarify the connection between politicians and money. A lot of things could be done.

Chasing special interest business out of the dark and into the light goes straight to the heart of politics as usual. Complaints from status quo defenders, e.g., secrecy is needed to protect sensitive information, could be reasonably dealt with. Not all information a lobbyist conveys is confidential or trade secret. The bulk of those communications are marketing or "rationale" as to why the special interest should be allowed to feed more voraciously from the public trough or get some other benefit. Those arguments are what the public needs to see and hear.

A soft, deadly threat

Special interest marketing pleas are no doubt sometimes, maybe usually, accompanied by very subtle promises/threats of "campaign contributions" to the incumbent or the challenger in the next election cycle depending on what the politician will or will not do. That is how money exerts its pressure, i.e., it is the politician's main incentive to act or fail to act. Forcing more transparency into politics would be an effective public interest counter threat.