If it quacks and walks like a duck, is it? Legal corruption, that is.
As a U.S. Senate candidate in Vermont (D, I), I advocate for FRESH ideas (Fairness, Reasonableness, Equity, Sustainability, and Honorable public service) to ‘get our groove back’ as a nation. But to regain our energy, we need basic game rules that work for all rather than a small powerful elite (an oligarchy). We can’t continue with a system in which a powerful few are so much ‘more equal’ than the rest. It is freighening to recall how often I heard during this campaign the wording of Tracy Chapman’s classic song, ‘Revolution’.
How do we start?
The first step is to transform our representative democracy into one in which the people rather than Special Interests are represented. This is the best means of fighting civic apathy and cynicism and sustaining our democracy. That Americans don’t trust their politicians and assume they are bought out by Special Interests is a cancer in our society.
So, what needs to be done is easy: Vermont must take ownership of its Congressional delegation and only consider candidates who minimize conflict of interest by declining Special Interests money…I call this a Vermont Political Revolution.
What I struggle with is terminology. Words matter.
In many countries, public servants are routinely bribed directly by Special Interests with obvious quid-pro-quo agreements (I scratch your back, you scratch mine). These countries, with common illegal bribery, are considered to have corrupt governments. In the U.S., direct funding by Special Interests to public servants is illegal but indirect contribution to their campaign is legal. Quid-pro-quo agreements are implicit rather than obvious. Our government, with uncommon illegal bribery, is considered to have low corruption.
I consider the distinction to be more academic than real. Either way, public servants are provided goodies by Special Interests with something expected in return. The people suffer either way because the end result is clouded objectivity. Our Congressional representatives are usually more sophisticated than to respond overtly like a puppet after acceptance of Special Interest money. They respond more subtly, sometimes just turning their attention elsewhere. But make no mistake; legislation is influenced either way.
And Vermont?
Senator Leahy has taken more than $1.4 million from Special Interests PACs. He is not the worst but not the best. He and his Senate colleagues play a dangerous game, hiding behind a cloak of supporting campaign finance reform but rationalizing this activity by noting its legality. Vermont Party officials iterate, ‘that is what you have to do to win’.
Back to terminology…
I dislike ‘being negative’ but I abhor sweeping the truth under the rug. I know in my heart that taking Special Interests money is wrong, suggests lack of personal responsibility, poor leadership, and opportunism, and causes America harm. These are polite words.
The question remains: if it quacks and walks like a duck, is it a duck?! If yes, the right words, although harsher and less politically correct, are ‘corruption’, or at least ‘legal corruption’. Once we agree on the right terminology, we can better address the problem.
This conversation is important. What are your thoughts?
Tags: campaign finance reform, conflict of interest, Corruption, Daniel Freilich, personal responsibility, Senator Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Vermont Political Revolution
This entry was posted on Monday, June 14th, 2010 at 11:51 am and is filed under Leadership. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.