Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

When the Supreme Court struck down the limitation on corporate campaign spending in Citizens United, the whole political world became increasingly concerned with the inevitable, unfettered influx of contributions from corporations constantly in search of a way to control their market through government influence. Is this not what was happening already? Perhaps, it would be helpful to require disclosure of what special interest is funding what politician. In fact, we should take a page out of NASCAR’s book and the politicians can wear suits with patches of all their sponsors. This approach of disclosure is at least beginning to place the responsibility on the politician. The truth is special interests are acting in their best interest and the interest of their investors and/or members by using financial means to influence politics that in turn create more wealth for the business. If you ask me, that is business/investing 101. The term Quid-pro-Quo means “something for something”, would politicians make different decisions if they did not get that first “something?” If they are making decisions adverse to their fundamental political beliefs, why do they have the power to make decisions that will provide an isolated benefit to that special interest?

Let’s assume for our purposes that the only reason special interests donate to (well, invest in) politicians is for some favor once that politician takes office. It is more likely than not that the politician was either nominated by the special interest or supported by the special interest because of his or her stated beliefs in early campaigning. It is therefore reasonable to think that this candidate would likely vote in line with the beliefs of the special interest anyway. By limiting the amount of spending by these organizations, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act hoped to level the playing field among candidates, but absent any spending from special interests these politicians will still have certain agendas and beliefs that they are trying to promote by obtaining the desired position. Many of these politicians begin their careers in special interest or corporate jobs. Campaign money is not necessary to mold the beliefs of these politicians.

Now many people will argue that despite a politician’s ideological inclination to promote certain agendas, money still talks and plays a role. Unfortunately, this is the truth and there are instances where politicians promote and pass legislation for the sole purpose of appeasing their corporate donors. In order for this condition to be satisfied, however, the favor must be one that creates a specialized benefit to the special interest without creating a societal or economic benefit to a larger group. It seems that few instances exist where the federal government’s power to create such a law should exist.

Let’s look at the example of federal labor laws. These laws were strongly influenced by the political power of the labor unions. The federal government should not have the power to make laws relating to wages or hours in employment contracts (i.e. minimum wage or maximum hours). Unions and individual exercising their rights to choose are sufficient to determine what is fair. Unions are formed by individuals with common interests to establish better working standards in the particular industry. That is enough. If an employer has no employees because employees will not work under the particular conditions, the employer will fail. This creates a situation in which the employer is forced to negotiate a fair deal with the Unions (the employees.) In addition, by requiring individuals to work things out on a smaller scale the modern individual would likely be much more politically and socially active and aware.

A similar example applied to for-profit corporations is the lobbying for restrictions on others in the industry or exemptions just for them. The federal government should not be in a position to make laws that exempt a particular company or award a particular company based on what turn out to be arbitrary rationales. In many cases, government contracts are already awarded prior to the bidding process. My question is simple, “Where are the checks and standards for awarding these contracts?”

The bottom line is politicians will always run for office with certain ideals and agendas. Special interest groups will support a politician that has similar beliefs as them and the politician will act to favor these groups regardless of financial benefits. However, as long as we allow these politicians to have the power to make decisions that directly benefit special interests, the special interests will continue to exploit this power through financial means. It is up to the people to be more active and aware of the decisions being made and to speak up where our officials are not acting in line with the societal interest. Special interests will always have their voice and whether they use financial influence or other promises, their demands will be heard. It is time that we come home early and catch our politicians red handed with their special interest mistress. And when we do the question we must ask is, “Who is really at fault?” Do we blame the mistress whose intentions are clearly spelled out or do we hold politicians accountable to the oath they take, for the decisions they make, and limit their power where we know they will be susceptible to corruption? Sure we would rather blame the mistress, but we know who really committed the betrayal.