Friday, November 25, 2011

Has Government Sold Out?


The Occupy Wall Street protests illustrate the public’s outrage that the government is in bed with big businesses. The escalating costs of campaigns and the influence of interest groups illustrates the power of money. For this reason, government should significantly limit the amount of money any candidates running for public office can raise and spend for campaign purposes. This would prevent the escalating greed in Washington among career politicians who are more concerned with increased power than the needs of U.S. citizens.

Ninety-three to ninety-four percent of congressional seats are won by the candidates who spend the most money campaigning. This can in part by explained by the iron triangle concept. This concept states that interest groups, congressional committees and executive agency personnel make political deals that are mutually beneficial. Thus, Congress passes bills that benefit business interest groups in exchange for campaign contributions. Business interest groups are one of the largest financial contributors to government candidates and political action committees (PACs). Moreover, business interest groups are one of the most influential interests groups. Can anyone say conflict of interest? In any other setting this kind of relationship would be considered unethical and grounds for job termination (e.g. in most cases, acceptance of a gift more than $20).

Reducing the cost of campaigns would also allow more individuals to enter the political arena, individuals who may have more appropriate expertise. This would also create a more relatable governing body. Most politicians make considerably more than the average American. How then, can politicians realistically relate to the plight of the average-Joe?  Politics should be about the greater good and opportunities for all. How can this be obtained when politicians have their hands in the pockets of big businesses, and greed and corruption is pervasive? 

4 comments:

  1. I believe Christa Vargo hit the nail on the head when she wrote this post. She feels that there should be a cap on political contributions to limit the need for politicians to sell their votes for donations and to enable them to start focusing on what the people really want.



    I agree completely. I also agree that if we place a limit on total contributions it will allow more people into the field that previously would have no chance at winning because they could not raise the same level of funds. Our politicians are so focused on money and so many of the top "1%" of money makers are running the government that it is hard for them to objectively makes laws and run our country in a way that really benefits the majority instead of running it in a way that benefits mostly the rich (themselves).



    In the link she shared that shows that money really does win elections, I was appalled to find out that Obama declined the use the public financing that is offered to top ticket candidates and still significantly beat out McCain on money for his election. It is virtually like buying a seat in congress or buying a presidency. This has got to stop. There is no reason why they need to spend a million or more to be elected and with each candidate that raises more, it raises the price it takes to win. This link she shared was perfect for her points. It spells out everything that she was saying. Overall, this was a great opinion piece and I really enjoyed reading it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. “Has Government Sold Out?”, a commentary by Christa Vargo addresses the Occupy Wall Street protests and their concerns with the cost of campaigning and the influence of interest groups on congressional seats. They feel that business interest groups contribute large sums of money to government candidates and PAC’s and in turn cause a conflict of interest.
    Christa’s argument is in line with the views of the Occupy Wall Street protestors; she argues that the relationship between congress and interest groups is unethical and that reducing the cost of campaign contributions would diffuse greed and corruption and in turn create a more relatable government body.
    The argument is well defended by an embedded link that shows the amount of money candidates are raising in order to run in political races and also states that money wins presidency in 9 out of 10 congressional races. The author’s audience is most likely a more liberal one; yet not exactly Democratic as most Occupy Wall Street protesters “disassociate themselves with any political party.”
    In my opinion Christa’s argument is very logical; she makes a good point that “In any other setting this kind of relationship would be considered unethical and grounds for job termination.” It really is sad that money is what represents people in congress. James Madison warned against factions in Federalist # 10 and there is no doubt that interest groups were intended for that warning.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is true, Christa. Sometimes it is difficult to see where the interests of our law making bodies reside, or rather, what motivates them.

    For the presidential election of 2012, hopeful Ron Paul has raised approximately $12,804,591. Of this amount, he has spent $9,993,586. $1 million from his fundraised money has been spent on private jet chartered flights, far more than any other candidate. There is a luxury that exists as a benefit of being a public servant. This luxury, for the sake of an efficient and honest government, should not exist.

    It is mentioned in your blog that "ninety-three to ninety-four percent of congressional seats are won by the candidates who spend the most money campaigning." Campaigning should not be such an extravagant event. Firstly, it opens the door to corruption through large contributions made in the faith of future reimbursement. The percentage of the population that contributed more than $2,400 in the 2010 election cycle was 0.06%. Secondly, the race becomes one of popularity, who can self-advertise better, not who has the best ideas on how to recuperate a crumbling system. And thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, is a point you brought up -- it blocks out lesser known or new candidates, those with far less reach into people's and businesses' pockets, creating a system of candidate recycling. The less money an obscure and individual campaign raises, the less credibility it has, no matter what principle base they stand on; the more obscure the newcomer, the more difficult it is to raise campaign money.

    An imposed limit on campaign donations, or maybe even a limit on campaign budgets, seems to be a proper course of action. Candidates will have to stand on their words, not their popularity or connections.

    It has always been hard for me to trust candidates who supposedly side with the under privileged in this country when they themselves do not need to worry about whether or not they will make enough money to pay the electric bill, even if they have been in that situation before. It's about modesty. I've never liked White House galas. They remind me too much of a pre-revolution France.

    ReplyDelete
  4. For links: http://moderngovernment.blogspot.com/2011/12/response-has-government-sold-out.html

    ReplyDelete