Saturday, August 29 , 2015, 11:54 pm | Fair 80.0º




Susan Estrich: Political Elections and the $6 Billion Scam

By Susan Estrich |

While all the figures aren’t in and almost certainly never will be, the Center for Responsive Politics has estimated that roughly $6 billion was spent on the 2012 election, including $2 billion on the presidential contest and something on the order of $4 billion on congressional and state races. This gives us, I suppose, the best government money can buy — which is certainly not the best we could have.

When I say what was spent, what I really mean is what was raised. While there are typically a few wealthy candidates who largely finance their own campaigns (whoever thought the richest candidate would turn out, in this topsy-turvy world, to be the most independent), most of the money responsible for the awful ads and the endless mailings and the like is raised from people and corporate PACs with every reason to give, as well as corporations that are now free to spend unlimited sums. For those who say disclosure is the best (and only feasible) protection against corruption, it’s worth pointing out the new scam on the block: “GPS” groups pioneered by Karl Rove and now duplicated by President Barack Obama’s supporters that don’t even have to disclose the multimillion-dollar contributions they receive.

Why, one of my students asked me, do people donate this kind of money to politics? You could bring health care to tens of thousands of children in the world, build schools for impoverished kids, help seniors living on fixed incomes, clean up dumpsites, fund medical research, do any number of things that would make the world a better place as opposed to another negative ad.

There are some people who give money because they truly believe in causes like these. They believe that supporting candidates is the best way to further such goals.

But in my experience, which is overwhelmingly supported by the numbers, most of the money in politics is based on more selfish concerns. Banks and corporations and insurers and lawyers give money to further their business goals, or at least to ensure that those on the other side don’t get ahead. They used to bundle contributions in the tens of thousands. Now, you’ve got to be raising or giving a million to be noticed.

And that’s just what these folks spend directly on the elections. They also spend big on the lobbyists who ensure that the interests of big money are fully rewarded in legislative and executive actions.

It is a corrupt arms race, with no end in sight and no one willing to take steps to end it.

You can blame the U.S. Supreme Court for opening the door to “independent” expenditures that really aren’t. Need I add that no recent members of the court have ever run for office?

You can blame the politicians who spend more time raising money, with few or no limits on who they’ll take it from, without thinking for a moment about what will be expected of them, for whom November is the only relevant object.

Some years ago, when Republicans were consistently outraising Democrats, I asked a leader of my party why we were spending so much time competing in a losing battle that was, in more ways than I can detail in one column, costing us our collective soul. His answer was clear: Unilateral disarmament is a fool’s answer.

Much like childrearing, the only way the system will ever change is if we stop rewarding bad behavior.

Oh, yes, every once in a while someone gets caught skirting the rules, not being quite clever enough in buying influence. A few years ago, that person was super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was convicted for not crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s in his multimillion-dollar relationships with Indian tribes. Abramoff, after serving four years, is now preaching reform.

But the most interesting thing he told an audience last week in Rancho Mirage is not what he did wrong, but that “99.9 percent of what I did was legal, but so much of it was reprehensible.” And with the amount of money being spent on campaigns only going up, it’s only getting worse. TMM: Too much money.

Susan Estrich is a best-selling author, the Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science at the USC Law Center and was campaign manager for 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis. Click here to contact her or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.




comments powered by Disqus

» on 02.04.13 @ 07:44 PM

Truer words are rarely written. Thanks. This is the darkest, sleaziest era in D.C.
since the days of the Robber Barons after the Civil War, where every monopoly
or special interest “owned” their own small group of senators and representatives.

Thank heavens the Roberts-Scalia Court believes that corporations and unions are
“people”, with full rights to “unlimited free expression”.

What ever happened to Justice Kennedy’s promise that all major donations would
have their specific origins revealed before campaigns and elections were done?

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

 

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.