Money in politics is destroying democracy. Most people who run for office are not wealthy enough to finance their own political campaigns. A few, like Tom Steyer (or Ross Perot several years ago) are wealthy enough to run for President. But even the alleged billionaire Donald Trump sought monetary donations from others for his campaign.
So most candidates are dependent on big contributors, special interests, billionaires and corporations that “invest” in politicians, knowing that when it comes to legislation, the politician will bend to the wishes of the wealthy donors, and not to the people who elected him. Basically, this is legalized corruption.
Political candidates are people, and people follow the basic laws of psychology. Most people— including politicians—start off with the best of intensions. They know they are dependent on outside money, but convince themselves they can take the money without being corrupted. Instead they think other politicians will become corrupted, but not them. In short, they naively assume they have too much integrity to allow money to influence their judgment. This doesn’t just happen to politicians. Doctors who receive all sorts of benefits and freebies from pharmaceutical companies, such as free trips to the Caribbean for symposiums, also erroneously assume they would never personally alter their medical judgment just because they went on a free trip. They fear other doctors might be so unduly influenced, but not them.
The psychological principle of cognitive dissonance explains why the politicians and doctors who receive money or favors are mistaken; and why those who provide the largess invariably get what they pay for. The doctor doesn’t think, “Since the pharmaceutical company gave me a free trip to Bermuda, I’ll prescribe their brand of anti-depressant.” Instead, he or she thinks, “I’m prescribing the brand of anti-depressant made by the pharmaceutical company [that gave me a free trip to Bermuda] because in my medical judgment it is the best medication for my patients.” In other words, the doctor’s medical judgment has been compromised without the doctor even being aware of it.
Cognitive dissonance is the simple idea that whenever our thinking isn’t aligned with our behavior, something has got to give. Either we change our thinking, or we change our behavior. Otherwise we feel dissonance—a conflict which arises when we realize our behavior is now inconsistent with the positive view we hold of ourselves. Most people, including doctors and politicians, are good guys, and good guys don’t, they think, become corrupted. Thus, without conscious awareness, their thinking changes to be consistent with their behavior.
Let’s use Marco Rubio as a salient example. As a Republican from Florida he received lots and lots of money from the NRA—over three million dollars! After the mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida, Senator Rubio said that stricter gun legislation would not have prevented this shooting. My point is that Rubio was sincere in his erroneous belief, without even realizing how much his thinking was influenced and corrupted by the money he received. Either Rubio would have had to change his behavior, and no longer take money from the NRA; experience cognitive dissonance, and admit he’d rather be re-elected than save the lives of school students; or change his thinking that gun regulations really don’t help stop mass shootings. Rubio changed his thinking. The NRA got what they paid for—a politician in their pocket who still believes he is doing his own thinking.
Another example, is the Republican Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham. Graham received huge contributions from the Las Vegas casino owner, Sheldon Abelson. In return, Graham agreed to vote against any legislation that would legalize on-line gambling. Abelson, of course, is smart enough to realize that if Americans living far away from Las Vegas can legally gamble on-line at home on their computer, fewer of them will pay to make the trip to Vegas and gamble in his casinos. Yet Graham insisted he took the money because he is opposed to gambling in South Carolina, conveniently forgetting the money is used to promote gambling in Nevada. It is easy to label Lindsey Graham as a hypocrite, but I imagine Graham sees no conflict of interest in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.
Lest one conclude I am singling out only Republicans, Hillary Clinton was criticized for accepting speaking engagements from Wall Street that paid her hundreds of thousands of dollars. Later, she insisted she did nothing wrong, as she claimed taking the money from Wall Street had no effect on her judgment. Yeah, right.
Another way to avoid the corruption of money in politics is to bypass big donors altogether. When running for President, Bernie Sanders couldn’t very well blame the billionaires for vast income inequality and also take money from the billionaires. So instead, he used the internet to solicit money from thousands of small donors, instead of a few big donors. He bragged his average contribution was $27. And since he can’t be beholden to thousands of different donors, the money was unable to corrupt him.
But what worked for Bernie won’t work for most candidates who run for office. Bernie had a cult-like following and, since he was running for President, could collect many small contributions from all over the country. This wouldn’t work nearly as well, for state and local elections where the candidate is more than likely relatively unknown, rather than a national celebrity.
Now that I have decided to run for office, hoping to become a Representative in the South Carolina State House, it is easy to fool myself that I have so much integrity, I personally would never be influenced by big money. But an experience I had when I was twenty-two makes me a little more cautious. My mother ran for House Seat 22 in South Carolina and won. She was working as a Representative in Columbia the same time I was going to college at the University of South Carolina. Shortly after the legislative session began, she called me up and asked me if I would like to join her for a dinner of steak and lobster. Since I usually had to suffer eating awful university cafeteria food to survive, this was an offer I didn’t want to turn down. I asked how she could afford it. She told me not to worry; the electric company in the midlands was footing the bill for all the incoming freshmen Representatives (and their guest.)
I suspected corruption, but everything appeared to be above board. This was no clandestine meeting in a smoke-filled room with an obvious quid-pro-quo. All the freshmen representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, openly ate together, thanks to the “generosity” of the utility company. The utility company spokesperson only said they were providing this dinner to welcome the Representatives to Columbia, and if anyone ever needed any help or advice, they would be happy to provide it. Doing the math, I figured about 50 people times $50 a plate, meant the dinner cost the utility company around $2500. Small change for big influence—especially when no one there had any idea they were even being influenced. I wondered how steadfast I would be standing up against a rate-hike when the time came to increase everyone’s electric bill, after eating all the steak and lobster I wanted, provided by the utility company. It didn’t even occur to me the same utility company would shut off someone’s heat in the dead of winter, if they couldn’t afford to pay the electric bill. $2500 could be used to provide emergency heat for those too poor to pay.
Of course, the electric utility company may not deem it a good investment to donate to my campaign if the donation is anonymous. Yet many other potential donors are more likely to donate to my campaign, knowing that I am an honest candidate who is less immune to corruption. Hopefully, this will work well enough that other candidates will follow suit. Perhaps it isn’t possible to get money out of politics, but at least honest politicians will have a way to take campaign contributions without being influenced by those contributions. If you had to choose between donating $100 to one of two candidates, would you prefer to give the money to one you knew was beholden to much bigger donors, or the one who was beholden to no one, save the people he is elected to represent?
One person who said she wanted to contribute to my campaign, stated she wanted me to know she was making a contribution. I had no doubt she simply thought I would be a good candidate, and had nothing personal to gain by contributing to my campaign. However, I explained to her that every contributor wants the candidate they contribute to, to know they gave money—and many contribute because they do think they will get something that will benefit themselves later. The point is, there is no way to know who is giving in good faith and who is giving for their own gain.
One clue is the amount given. So I have no qualms about selling my Dreyfus 20-20 campaign buttons for $2 apiece, or selling a Dreyfus bumper-sticker for $4.
So recognizing I might as easily become corrupted by money as anyone else, I devised a simple plan that makes it more difficult for me to become corrupted by campaign contributions. All I have to do is make sure I don’t know who is contributing to my campaign, or how much they are giving.
Here is how it will hopefully work: I set up a special account with Arthur State Bank, a local bank I have trusted for years. Contributions, made out to the Dreyfus Election Fund, are mailed directly to the bank. The bank then records the name of the contributor and the amount, and then deposits the money into the campaign account, namely the Dreyfus Election Fund. As a candidate, I can use the money in the Dreyfus Election Fund for campaign purposes, but I won’t be corrupted by the contribution since there would be no direct way for me to know who gave me money or how much.
However, the South Carolina State Ethics Commission, in order to minimize the corruption of money in politics, requires each candidate to publicly disclose who is contributing to the campaign and how much is being contributed. Thus, I will have to get someone else on my campaign, who is privy to this information, to fill out the necessary disclosure forms. This way, anyone, including myself, can go on line and see who has contributed.
So why bother to go to all the trouble to set up a special account that makes it more difficult for me to know who is contributing, if I can find out anyway? For the same reason I advised my alcoholic clients not to keep beer in their refrigerator. When I was working at Anderson Memorial Hospital in the Detox Unit, I heard one of our previous patients relapsed and had to be hospitalized for alcohol-related medical problems. He wasn’t in Detox, but was in the same hospital, so on my break I went to visit him. I asked him how he relapsed. He said he was doing well for a while, but one day he got a hankering for a beer, went to the refrigerator, and started drinking again. I admonished him for keeping beer in his refrigerator as that set him up to drink. He pointed out he could always go to the store to buy beer, if he decided he wanted to drink.
“That’s true,” I replied, “But by not keeping beer in your house, you would have had time to decide not to drink, even if you were momentarily tempted.” Likewise, I don’t want to know who is giving to my campaign or how much, and by making it more difficult to find out, I can avoid the temptation of looking it up.
Actually, this plan is similar to the trust accounts members of Congress use to make certain they can’t be accused of passing legislation that directly enriches their stock portfolio. Since the investments are run by a trust which doesn’t divulge which stocks the Congressman owns, he can’t vote for or against legislation that helps him financially.
The problem is we need a system before someone gets elected, while they are still running for office and collecting contributions. If a huge utility company wants to donate $1000 to my election fund, they can easily do so, but only the bank (and one person working on my campaign) will know they are the ones making the contribution. Since I don’t know, and don’t want to know, the money can’t influence me.
I realize that by trying to be above board, I might not get as many contributions or as much money as needed to run a successful campaign. But at least I want to give it a try and see if it works.
I would like to quote one Daily Kos writer who provided the following comment about money in politics:
People want politicians who are credible, can’t be bought, and who will upend the ruling order which is seen as corrupt and only helps the rich and powerful. Perhaps that’s why the two candidates who are not taking money from rich fundraisers are doing so well, particularly in comparison to those who have been heavily dependent on such donations…
Not saying that taking money from rich donors is corrupt or a sell-out. But it does compromise their integrity… And when a candidate becomes dependent on those donations, the rich donors making the donations start becoming investors in a way the candidate must answer to and kowtow to.
If you would like to donate to my campaign for the South Carolina House of Representatives, you may do so by sending a check payable to Dreyfus Election Fund and mail to the following address:
Dreyfus Election Fund
Arthur State Bank
2014 North Pleasantburg Drive
Greenville, South Carolina 29607
Thank you for your support. All comments, criticisms, and monetary contributions are welcome. Please also read my previous diary posted earlier today, Stephen Dreyfus, Frequent Kos Contributor, is Now a Democratic Candidate.