My question to Team Hillary: If the only kind of corrupting influence of money in politics is the narrowly defined “quid pro quo” variety (i.e, I give you money in exchange for a vote or other official favor), then why do you object to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United and McCutcheon rulings? In fact, you are in total agreement with the SCOTUS corporatist five’s analysis that, to quote Chief Justice Roberts,
“Any regulation must instead target what we have called ‘quid pro quo’ corruption or its appearance. That Latin phrase captures the notion of a direct exchange of an official act for money.”
Or is the “principle” at work here — IOKIYAD (It’s OK If You’re A Democrat)? — because Democrats are special little snowflakes who can stuff all that money in their campaign coffers (or directly in their pockets in the form of speaking fees) and not be unduly influenced. Only Republicans are corrupted by money in politics. That position takes a special kind of mental gymnastics that is more often the hallmark of the conservative brain.
I was reminded that, back in 2006, then Senator Barack Obama wrote eloquently and honestly about the corrupting influence of money in politics in his book The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Because Team Hillary generally won’t listen to Team Bernie, perhaps they will heed Obama’s wise words. Here a few excerpts:
“More often, though, that’s not the way money influences politics. Few lobbyists proffer an explicit quid pro quo to elected officials. They don’t have to. Their influence comes simply from having more access to those officials than the average voter, having better information that the average voter, and having more staying power when it comes to promoting an obscure provision in the tax code that means billions for their clients and that nobody else cares about.” (p. 109) (emphasis added)
And at least during Obama’s Senate race:
“Ironically, my dark-horse status protected me from some of the more dangerous pitfalls of fund-raising. Most of the corporate PACs avoided me, and so I owed them nothing...” (p. 113) (emphasis added)
In addition to enlightening the reader, Obama seems to be warning his future self — however futilely — to avoid the money trap:
“But I worry that there was also another change at work. Increasingly I found myself spending time with people of means— law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists... they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class: the top 1 percent or so of the income scale that can afford to write a $2,000 check to a political candidate. They believed in the free market and an educational meritocracy; they found it hard to imagine that there might be any social ill that could not be cured by a high SAT score. They had no patience with protectionism, found unions troublesome, and were not particularly sympathetic to those whose lives were upended by the movements of global capital...” (p. 113-114) (emphasis added)
“Still, I know that as a consequence of my fund-raising I became more like the wealthy donors I met... You might fight it, with town hall meetings and listening tours and stops by the old neighborhood. But your schedule dictates that you move in a different orbit from most of the people you represent.” (p. 114-115)
And finally, full surrender to the corrupt system:
“And perhaps as the next race approaches, a voice within tells you that you don’t want to have to go through all that misery of raising all that money in small increments all over again. You realize that you no longer have the cachet you did as the upstart, the fresh face; you haven’t changed Washington, and you’ve made a lot of people unhappy with difficult votes. The path of least resistance — of fund-raisers organized by the special interests, the corporate PACs, and the top lobbying shops — starts to look awfully tempting, and if the opinions of these insiders don’t quite jibe with those you once held, you learn to rationalize the changes as a matter of realism, of compromise, of learning the ropes. The problems of ordinary people, the voices of the Rust Belt town or the dwindling heartland, become a distant echo rather than a palpable reality, abstractions to be managed rather than battles to be fought.” (p. 115) (emphasis added).
Sure, we can actually point to specific examples where Hillary was very likely influenced by her big money donors, including her flip flop to support the 2001 bankruptcy bill and — until Bernie started nipping at her heels — her enthusiastic support of TPP, Keystone XL, fracking and private prisons.
But the larger point is that voters can never be sure where the donor class ends and Hillary begins. Does she oppose a new Glass-Steagall to break up the banks because she genuinely believes it’s bad policy or because her Wall Street donors hate it? Is she reluctant to scrap or lift the wage cap on Social Security (another wildly popular progressive policy) because she thinks it’s a good idea that the rich continue to pay a much lower payroll tax rate than everyone else? Or has Pete Peterson’s cadre of donors been chirping in her ear too much? I don’t know. Do you know? I’m not sure even Hillary knows anymore.
As Upton Sinclair famously described the dilemma,
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
When Team Hillary defends her actions with “But, President Obama took the money, too,” the proper reply is “Yep, and progressives have been complaining for the last seven years about his sell-outs and flip-flops that have nothing to do with Republican obstruction — failure to prosecute a single Bankster, populating his administration with a bunch of corporate CEOs and Wall Street retreads, abandoning the public option very early on, championing the TPP, supporting fracking, offering to cut Social Security COLA increases... and the list goes on. I’m not saying Obama is evil or as bad as the Republicans — he’s accomplished some good things and staved off some really bad things — but this is what happens when you take “the path of least resistance” he described above.
Me? I‘m going to fight for more — a bold progressive vision — because I know we’ll certainly never get what we don’t demand. And maybe, just maybe, if we fight for something big, we might actually get it someday soon. Could anyone have imagined just a few years ago that gay marriage would now be legal in all fifty states? Or that Seattle, New York and California would have passed a $15 minimum wage? What if progressive activists had limited themselves to Obama’s $10.10 or Hillary’s $12?
The corporate assault on our democracy has been going full tilt for over four decades. The grip of the moneyed interests is powerful and entrenched. Few progressives are unrealistic enough to think we are going to achieve Medicare-For-All or free tuition at public colleges in the first 100 days or even in the next four years, especially if Republicans keep control of the House. As with any daunting task (losing 400 pounds or finishing your PhD thesis), however, it starts with the first step. And the first step is changing the conversation of what is possible — framing a bold vision — and breaking free of the money grip. In that, Bernie has already succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest imagination.
The alternative is giving up on the bold progressive vision and never setting our sights above the mere crumbs that the plutocrats might allow us to have. As Senator Elizabeth Warren challenges,
“Anyone who shrugs and claims that change is just too hard has crawled into bed with the billionaires who want to run this country like some private club. All of us were sent here (to Congress) to do our best to make government work — to make it work not just for those at the top, but to make government work for all people. And it’s time we start acting like it.” (emphasis added)
You Might Also Like:
“Warren Calls for Action to Root Out Influence of Money in Politics” Video 1/21/16
The Young Turks: “CNN To Sanders Campaign: Can You Prove Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt?” Video 4/21/16