Legitimate Corruption

It’s pretty standard operating procedure in most of the world that greasing the palms of well-situated local government officials is simply an “accepted” way to get things done. Whether it is appointing senior government or party officials, with stock options and cash payments, to the boards of companies they regulate – a common occurrence in the People’s Republic of China – to putting entire local police departments on the payroll of the regional drug cartels (to look the other way… or to perform nefarious “other” services) – welcome to Mexico – lowly-paid government operatives can make anything from a living wage to a really good living by following the cultural patterns of “normal and accepted” bribery and corruption. For American residents who “simply play ball and go local,” the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act adds massive fines and potential prison time for those who partake in these corrupt systems. We snarl and look down on such corruption.

In the United States, however, we also have a glorious history of officials on the “take.” Look at the revolving door of Illinois governors that have found themselves on the receiving end of federal indictments, getting free “room and board” after convictions. Think of New York City’s Tammany Hall, the Chicago and Louisiana political machines of old, and the rolling prosecution of senators, congress people, mayors, building inspectors, city council members, police, etc, etc. Rod Blagojevich? Jesse Jackson, Jr.? And then when foreign operatives entire the fray, especially when it comes to federally-elected officials, we get even more sensitive and nasty. We still snarl and look down on any of the above.

Which may be why we have created an entire schema of what I will refer to as “legitimate corruption” – where statutes, regulations and judicial rulings allow special interests to use money to buy legislators and special consideration with a wink and smile and no risk of prosecution. The law simply does not allow “pay for play,” a tacit agreement by a political candidate accepting campaign contributions to make quid pro quo promises of favors in exchange for campaign contributions. If you can skirt this requirement, open your political wallet and let the good times roll.

The infamous and deeply undemocratic Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission 2010 Supreme Court decision does not allow direct candidate control of these SuperPac issue messages and political support. But everybody knows that if you want these billionaires, union and corporate funds behind you, you need to incorporate their message into your campaign and, if elected, your actions while in office.  But it’s equally “legitimately corrupt” in the relationship betweendirect campaign contributors and elected officials.

It’s pretty easy to see what the biggest and most powerful contributors, for the most part, seem to want from federally-elected officials: low taxes, minimal environmental controls, required benefits for workers to be as inconsequential as possible and as little oversight and regulatory-governance as the system can allow. Just about every one of these issues in fact under-serves or actually hurts the quality of life and economic well-being of the average American, but then the average American just doesn’t contribute enough to election campaigns to matter much these days… except in the local rhetoric needed to get elected.

But even there, politicians on the “legitimate take” have made a virtue of embracing these values as being the American way… and with enough sloganeering and SuperPac support, coupled with a bundling of these issues with outspoken religious mandates, enough people buy into this system that folks vote these legitimate corruptors into office. OK, a little Gerrymandering along the way helps tilt the playing field in favor of these enablers of special interest legislation. Add the requirement of House members to be elected every two years, and the grand plan becomes very apparent.

One of the biggest and most obvious “holes” in the system – one where generating enough in campaign contributions is simply a matter of a consistent voting record in favor of special interests – is in the House Financial Services Committee, where much legislation that impacts the financial industry emanates. Vulnerability is particularly found with those recently elected for the first time (the “freshmen”), who have not built up a legacy with local voters and require massive campaign contributions as they look over their shoulders at the next election.

“Political action committees — set up by lobbying firms, unions, corporations and other groups trying to push their agenda in Congress — have donated more money to Financial Services Committee members in the first six months of this year than to members of any other committee. The $9.4 million total is nearly $2 million more than the total for the Armed Services Committee, the only House panel with more members.

“With so many lawmakers clamoring to be on the Financial Services Committee, it has grown to 61 members from 44 since 1980, forcing the installation of four tiered rows of seats in the Rayburn House Office Building — with the first row of lawmakers on the floor, just in front of the tables used for witnesses.

“The committee’s chairman, Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, remains the top recipient of donationsfrom industry PACs this year, taking in $282,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks the influence of money in politics. But three Republican freshmen — [Andy] Barr [of Kentucky] and Representatives Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Ann Wagner of Missouri — have raised more money from industry PACs than many longtime committee members like Representative Spencer Bachus, an Alabama Republican who served as the panel’s chairman until the end of last year…

“Mr. Barr has introduced separate legislation that would permanently exempt banks that keep mortgages in their own portfolio from a requirement in Dodd-Frank that they follow a prescribed set of steps to ensure that customers can afford the loans. Mr. Barr’s proposal, introduced with no co-sponsors, moved with extraordinary speed through the legislative process. Within two weeks, Mr. Barr boasted, it was wrapped into a larger House bill that was passed by the entire Financial Services Committee, a coup for a House freshman…

“Mr. Barr is hardly the only freshman to introduce bills that would benefit the industry. Ms. Wagner of Missouri, another Republican freshman on the committee who has pulled in a large number of industry contributions, sponsored a bill that would block or delay Labor Department rules intended to prevent life insurance agents and other brokers from selling financial products that they know may not be in the client’s best interest.” New York Times, August 10^th. The list is substantial. Freshman Andy Barr is a rising star in the House of Representatives. And we snarl and look down on those who don’t figure out the system to suck as much campaign cash as they can muster.

I’m Peter Dekom, and as we sit back and allow this to happen, we are getting not the system we want or think we have… but perhaps one we deserve.