In Congress, It’s More than the “Appearance of Corruption”

The Supreme Court believes that the existence of corruption in the federal government is overblown and in a second case recently (first Citizens United, now McCutcheon) has lifted the sluice gates to allow virtually unlimited amounts of
money to flow into elections.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his Citizens United opinion that the government’s interest in the influence ofmoney is “limited to quid pro quo corruption”. In a subsequent case, the Court’s majority opinion found that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption".

How about actual corruption?

A piece on “60 Minutes” recently dealt with just one form of congressional corruption, but it was enough to show that Kennedy has been sequestered too long in that black-robed society and that has led him to believe that simply because contributors “may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt”.

Campaign funds cannot be converted to personal use by those running for office. That’s banned by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. But to go around that barrier, members of Congress soon thereafter devised the “Leadership PAC” — an unrestricted fund that members are free to set up individually to take in money that they can spend on anything they choose.

“60 Minutes” cited Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss spending more than $100,000 in just two years playing golf at the world’s finest courses. For New York congressman Gregory Meeks, it’s football — $35,000 on NFL games. More famously, in 2006, when North Carolina senator and presidential candidate John Edwards gave his mistress $114,000 to make a campaign video, that came from his leadership PAC.

These and other examples came from Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the Hoover Institution whose work we have already heralded in “Privy to Policy Secrets, Congress Trades on Insider Information”. Investigation by his team of researchers says hundreds of millions of dollars in political contributions have poured into these personal slush funds, with the money coming largely from lobbyists and special interest groups. You don’t need to be a leader to have a leadership PAC. Nearly every congressman and senator has one.

There is no movement afoot to eliminate this corruption. In 2011, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana had a go at it with a bill that would at least have prohibited his colleagues from hiring family members with with campaign funds or leadership PAC dollars. He got not a single co-sponsor. His fellow members like the arrangement just as it is and judging from those that “60 Minutes” interviewed (confronted is the better word, as most tried to duck), they have long since persuaded themselves that they are deserving of these lavish expense accounts.

These are contributions that are not intended for the travel and television spots a candidate needs to get elected or for an incumbent to return to office. They are outright personal gifts. Yet Justice Kennedy apparently believes there is no quid pro quo — that nothing is expected in return — when a donor pays for the personal pleasures of a member of Congress.

Kennedy should listen to Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard professor who described in a TED talk given a year ago the money raising process in Congress where they:

“spend between 30% and 70% of their time raising money to get back to Congress...and the question we need to ask is, what does it do to them, these humans, as they spend their time behind the telephone, calling people they've never met...As they do this, they develop a sixth sense, a constant awareness about how what they do might affect their ability to raise money...They constantly adjust their views”

Lessig campaigns hard for campaign finance reform and has just created a counter-PAC to “kickstart fundamental reform by reducing the influence of money in politics”. The goal for 2014 is to identify and back candidates

committed to fundamental reform in five congressional races, and to expand from there in the 2016 elections. His specifically targeted action, as opposed to the generalized goals of most political advocacy organizations, seems to have tapped a pent-up desire of citizens to see something actually done. Lessig’s campaign called MayDayPAC, aimed to raise $1 million in May (which will be matched, says the promotion). By 13 days into the month the fund had already passed the million mark. In June the stakes rise to $5 million (which also will be matched). Uniquely, none of the money will actually be collected from donors’ credit cards unless the entire pledge goal is reached by July 1.

If you’d like to play a part in getting corruptive money out of politics, click the graphic above.