Money makes the world go 'round and the world of politics is no exception. It's hard to win if you don't have a fat campaign war chest. Whether it is right or wrong, good or bad, I will leave to others to debate today.
The Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, DC campaign watchdog group, has done an excellent job tracking candidates and donations over the years, and this election is no exception.
In a report released by the McClatchy Newspaper Group's Washington Bureau, the Center found that "who" donated to Democratic Super Delegates had an interesting relationship with whom those delegates are supporting. Many of the Super Delegates are elected party officials, from Members of Congress, down to local County Commissioners.
85% of the Super Delegates who received campaign contributions from Sen. Barack Obama are now pledged to vote for him. In all his campaign gave $710,000.00.
75% of the Super Delegates who received campaign contributions from Sen. Hillary Clinton are now endorsing her. In all her campaign gave $236,000.00.
Now did the money come before the endorsements, or as a consequence of them? Probably some of both, although the newspaper report does not address it. Check www.capitaleye.org/superdelegates.asp for details.
Is this legal? Most of the time it probably is. However, if there was a deal, say "you vote for me and I'll give you money," then it's bribery which is illegal. Will we ever know if deals were made? Probably not.
Do Republicans have similar arrangements? Of course they do! The Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions are a form of "free speech." Giving money (within limits) is a way of expressing one's political views. And it makes practical sense too. If you are running for President, you want as many people as possible from your own party elected to Congress so they can pass your bills.
So it's part of our system. Undoubtedly some deals are made that break the law or violate certain ethical standards. Sometimes as in the "ABSCAM" case, Members of Congress are caught and sent to prison.
Even if it's legal and even if it's ethical, it still smells bad. First of all, it implies favoritism whether there is any or not. We are always left to wonder and that spells political mistrust. Second, it's a function of who can give or take money. Those who are not in the position to give become voiceless. Who represents them and their interests?
Sen. John McCain (D-AZ) along with with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) have been the champions of bipartisan campaign finance reform. Where are their voices on this, especially the GOP nominee, who a year ago had a campaign that was broke.The Center for Responsive Politics has been doing fascinating studies on the influence of money in politics for many years. It is to be commended for another fine (if not disturbing) report.
Check back often at www.MarkCurtisMedia.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment