Spring Break
LAUREN KATZ: Taking big money out of politics
by Katz, Lauren
Columnists | 9/11/07
Posted online at 8:29 PM EST on 9/10/07
/ Last updated at 12:35 AM EST on 9/10/07
On July 17 the front-page headline of my local paper read, "Patrick Murphy $1M ahead for 2008." I bet the freshman Republican he unseated in '06 choked on his Froot Loops that morning.
Money plays an enormous role in elections. The candidates need money to run competitive campaigns. But where is the line between a lawmaker who campaigns and a fundraiser who happens to vote on laws every once in a while?
In the past few years the American people have heard enough "Checkers the Dog" speeches-from members of both parties claiming to be free of corruption and scandal-to make Richard Nixon look respectable. When one of the most famous Brandeis alumni is Jack Abramoff, I am ashamed. When lobbyists pay for lunches and full expense vacations for our politicians, I worry. When Congress struggles to pass the child health care bill because of the tobacco lobby's power, something is clearly wrong.
Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) are known for their campaign finance reform efforts, which were a great first step. However, five years later, our country is ready for a bolder move.
The issue of clean elections (publicaly funded elections) has entered the political debate a couple times this year already. Some people may be familiar with the John Edwards- Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama argument at the Yearly Kos and AFL-CIO debates over the role of lobbyist money in elections. Mike Gravel received the most applause with a call for public funding, but the heated debate focused on whether candidates should accept money from lobbyists.
Senator Clinton tried to draw a line between good and bad lobby influence. Lobbies can represent teachers, women and the environment. This is true, but lobbyists also represent the interests of car manufacturers, oil companies and the tobacco industry-companies that use their power to get money and preserve shortcuts for themselves.
It would be easy to say that all lobbyists are evil, but they are not. Political action committees and interest groups do have credibility. Edwards says he is the candidate who represents the interests of the working man, and we are more inclined to believe him because the miners, steel workers and carpenters unions all support him.
Money plays an enormous role in elections. The candidates need money to run competitive campaigns. But where is the line between a lawmaker who campaigns and a fundraiser who happens to vote on laws every once in a while?
In the past few years the American people have heard enough "Checkers the Dog" speeches-from members of both parties claiming to be free of corruption and scandal-to make Richard Nixon look respectable. When one of the most famous Brandeis alumni is Jack Abramoff, I am ashamed. When lobbyists pay for lunches and full expense vacations for our politicians, I worry. When Congress struggles to pass the child health care bill because of the tobacco lobby's power, something is clearly wrong.
Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) are known for their campaign finance reform efforts, which were a great first step. However, five years later, our country is ready for a bolder move.
The issue of clean elections (publicaly funded elections) has entered the political debate a couple times this year already. Some people may be familiar with the John Edwards- Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama argument at the Yearly Kos and AFL-CIO debates over the role of lobbyist money in elections. Mike Gravel received the most applause with a call for public funding, but the heated debate focused on whether candidates should accept money from lobbyists.
Senator Clinton tried to draw a line between good and bad lobby influence. Lobbies can represent teachers, women and the environment. This is true, but lobbyists also represent the interests of car manufacturers, oil companies and the tobacco industry-companies that use their power to get money and preserve shortcuts for themselves.
It would be easy to say that all lobbyists are evil, but they are not. Political action committees and interest groups do have credibility. Edwards says he is the candidate who represents the interests of the working man, and we are more inclined to believe him because the miners, steel workers and carpenters unions all support him.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Lauren
posted 9/11/07 @ 10:57 AM EST
I hope the article made some of you think. If something I said really made sense to you, Democracy Matters might be a great club for you. Please contact me (lkatz@brandeis. (Continued…)
Post a Comment