Curtis Coleman, Contributing Author: The July 12, 2010 issue of TIME magazine [Vol. 176, No. 2, p.28ff] has an extraordinary story about how $3.5 billion was spent on lobbyists last year - On Sale: Your Government. Why Lobbying Is Washington’s Best Bargain. Steven Brill describes how in 2009 money managers invested an estimated $15 million in lobbyists to pressure legislators to protect a favorable tax treatment. The return? Brill estimates $10 billion in lower taxes for the special interest group.Describing it as “political influence purchasing”, Wall Street Watch reported, “The entire financial sector (finance, insurance, real estate) drowned political candidates in campaign contributions, spending more than $1.738 billion in federal elections from 1998-2008.” Andy Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union, once boasted "We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama -- $60.7 million to be exact -- and we're proud of it.”
The fact is, only in a minority of elections are everyday voting Americans selecting the people who will represent them in the House and Senate. So who is selecting our Congressmen and Senators? They’re being chosen by the Fourth Branch of Government. And it is one of the most compelling reasons we must make an incontrovertible multi-generational commitment to returning our federal government to the prescription – and constraints – of the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution ordains three branches of government:
The Legislative – the House and the Senate
The Executive – the President and Vice President
The Judiciary – the Supreme Court and lesser federal courts
Today, there is a fourth branch – an un-ordained unconstitutional branch of government arguably more powerful than the any of the other three: The Special Interests – with their lobbyists and campaign donations.
“Lobbyists have been at work from the earliest days of the Congress,” wrote the late Senator Robert C. Byrd. “William Hull was hired by the Virginia veterans of the Continental army to lobby for additional compensation for their war services."
When 18th and 19th century candidates for the House, the Senate and the Presidency campaigned on tree stumps, wooden platforms and from the backs of trains, Special Interests and their lobbyists may not have represented the threat to The Republic they do today, when what candidates actually say or believe can have almost nothing to do with whether or not they get our votes. How much money candidates can raise almost invariably determines who gets elected, or re-elected, because name ID and favorable or unfavorable impressions (sometimes based on fact and often on innuendo) are created in 30- and 60-second TV spots. The candidate that airs the most commercials and wins the positive or negative impression war wins the election.
So how do incumbents put your money into their re-election campaigns without your permission or even your knowledge? Via the Fourth Branch of Government.
Here’s how it works:
Step 1: A lobbyist representing a special interest group arranges a campaign donation to an incumbent in return for a commitment to vote on legislation that will:
1. Create a cash earmark for the group, or
2. Create a “carve out,” a special favorable tax treatment or “tax break” for the group CNSNews reported that more than 80% of Americans agreed with the statement, “Some contend that the reason federal legislation is often thousands of pages long is because provisions to benefit special interests can be more easily buried in long bills, and so citizens cannot decipher the legislative language quickly enough to be able to communicate support or opposition to their Senators or Members of Congress before a vote is taken.”, or
3. Create a financial advantage for the group by exempting the group from The Rule of Law. Violating a legal maxim according to which no one is above the law. Thomas Paine wrote in his pamphlet Common Sense that "in America, the law is king.” In 1780, John Adams advocated in the Massachusetts Constitution"a government of laws and not of men." See Rule of Law.
Step 2: The special interest group uses a portion of the tax dollars or tax relief it received because of the legislator’s vote to make another contribution to the legislator’s re-election campaign. In other words, your tax dollars are now going to that candidate without your permissionor even your knowledge.
Common Cause released a report that “18 members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense inserted more than $355 million in earmarks into the 2008 defense spending bill on behalf of their campaign contributors. Those contributors, according to campaign disclosure reports, donated a total of $1.3 million to the individual members who sponsored the earmarks.”
Step 3: The entire cycle repeats, and repeats, and repeats.
The next federal election report is due this week on July 15. In Arkansas (the home of The New South Conservative), incumbent U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) and incumbent Congressman John Boozman (R) are in a battle for Arkansas’ 2nd U.S. Senate seat. Their financial reports will be posted here: Don’t be surprised if either candidate reports more money from special interest groups outside of Arkansas than from individual Arkansans.
What about campaign finance reform laws like the McCain-Feingold Act? My good friend and former fellow U.S. Senate candidate Randy Alexander correctly called these laws “the incumbent protection acts.” It is important to remember that incumbents write the campaign finance “reform” laws.
What can be done? There is no silver bullet that will fix this enormous threat to our Republic, but a combination of solutions can make a tremendous improvement:
1. Term Limits. We must adopt an amendment to the Constitution that will limit the terms of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate: three terms for the House and two terms for the Senate. Term limits will diminish the repeated injury of Step 3 above.
2. Eliminate Earmarks. While earmarks don’t do damage equal to carve outs, their contribution to deficit spending is immense, and they are the medium for the most conspicuously offensive favors.
3. A Line Item Veto [With a veto-like override provision for the Congress]. Regardless of the persuasion of the President, a line item veto will place squarely on his office the opportunity and accountability for limiting unnecessary and unwarranted expenditures.
4. A Level Playing Field. Although Special Interests will always out-contribute “ordinary” voting Americans (in large part because they’re contributing our money), the playing field can be made more level by removing the limits individuals can contribute to campaigns.&
5. A Fixed Budget. We must begin to operate the federal government just like most American households – on a fixed (limited) budget.; Most Americans live on a fixed amount of money each month. If they decide to buy a new car that increases their car payments, they have to stop spending money on something else, or reduce their savings. When a new expense is added to the budget, something already there has to come out. A fixed, limited budget for the federal government will dramatically reduce earmarks and tax carve outs (and is an essential step toward a balanced federal budget).
There are other possible solutions. Some are advocating that campaign funds be treated as blind trusts; that is, anyone can make a contribution to any candidate, but the source of the funds is hidden from the candidate.
And there are other significant problems. The unfettered campaign activities of unions create a very unlevel playing field. Chris Cilliza of The Washington Post reported yesterday, “The AFL-CIO is launching the first stage of its field operation for November's elections, dropping more than 300,000 fliers at work sites in 23 states over the next two weeks. The effort, which is set to be announced this morning, is the start of what the union says will be an unprecedented effort in the 2010 campaign.”b How such powerful non-cash contributions to campaigns will be disclosed is a major problem that must be addressed.
Finally, we must demand a commitment before election. As “ordinary” citizens, we must take the time to study the candidates, their records, and their platforms. Voters must start demanding a firm, written, public accountable commitment to these reforms from candidates before they are elected. And then voters must be prepared to hold these legislators accountable for their commitments when they’re in office.
Ultimately, we need a popular cultural change towards norms of limited and constitutional government. Nothing less than the future of freedom for this generation and millions of yet-to-be-born Americans is at stake.
--------------------
Curtis Coleman is President of The Curtis Coleman Institute for Constitutional Policy, headquartered in North Little Rock, Arkansas. He submitted this article to the ARRA News Service Editor. Coleman is also the Co-founder and former President and Chief Executive Officer of Safe Foods Corporation. He lectures on team building and servant leadership in the Emerging Leaders program at the Center for Management and Executive Development, University of Arkansas Sam M. Walton School of Business.
Tags: Incumbent Advantage, Tax Money, Re-election, Campaigns, elections 2010, Curtis Coleman, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment