Politics and money don't mix

There is an old adage that goes, "Politics and Religion don't mix."
That wouldn't necessarily be true if today's lawmakers were a little
less "ethically challenged." If they were, no doubt most laws passed
would reflect a certain morality the American political system has long
since lost.

To me, however, there is an emerging new adage that rings more
true than the old Politics versus Religion issue, and that is,
"Politics and money don't mix."

Case in point:

Earlier this week virtually the entire entertainment industry
boycotted President Clinton's so called "summit" on violence in America,
because the president planned to denounce Hollywood for its atrocious
contributions to our culture's overall decline. Essentially, the
president was saying that there is too much sex, violence, and trash in
today's entertainment business, and he is right -- though insincere,
considering Clinton has been one of Hollywood's biggest and best friends
in decades.

TRENDING: They got away with cheating in November – now what?

Well, Hollywood didn't like the president's condemnation very much.
But rather than simply become indignant over being criticized, Hollywood
is upset because collectively the entertainment industry has
consistently supported Bill Clinton both financially and publicly for
over six years. It is because of that -- because they believed
their money bought a "hands-off" policy from the White House -- industry
folks stayed away in droves, not because they felt they were wrongly
criticized.

Yet, whenever criticism of the entertainment industry comes from
another sector -- conservative and religious groups come to mind --
Hollywood defends itself vehemently, and never even mentions the
financial aspect. This tells me two things: one, Hollywood doesn't
support conservatism, and two, Hollywood doesn't support religious
groups or institutions. If they did, you can bet they would be
complaining to them that their money should have bought silence.

Hence the problem between money and politics: all too often, groups
which contribute to a candidate do so less for ideology and more for the
purposes of buying loyalty. Under the current rules governing campaign
finance (which Clinton and Gore have broken with impunity), how in the
world can politicians say -- with straight faces -- that they are fairly
representing their constituents?

The answer is simple: They can't.

The way campaign financing is structured these days, most of our
elections are no different from the kinds of elections held in
third-world countries. There, money is also a corrupting factor, with
the rich and powerful contributing to key candidates to buy their
loyalty once they get into office.

And the arguments against reforming the way we finance campaigns are
equally ludicrous.

Supporters of the status quo love to wrap the issue of campaign
finance around the First Amendment -- "freedom of expression" and
"freedom of speech" and all that. Come on; since when does buying
loyalty and legalized corruption equate to a constitutional right?

This is a disingenuous argument. Nobody, including me, is seeking to
curb or restrict the First Amendment. I'm talking about political
corruption fueled by money, not limiting somebody's ability to speak
freely.

What I am saying is that in America today, elections are bought and
sold by special interest groups and candidates. Worse, everyone knows
this, and the politicians know we know. So what is the problem?
Why aren't we getting reform?

Think about it. Why are record sums of money being spent to
land people in office who will earn only a fraction of what it costs to
get there? If there's no payoff at the end -- for someone --
then why spend tens of millions to make a couple hundred thousand a
year?

And if all these so-called "political action committees" and
million-dollar-donors are not expecting anything for their money -- if
they're not buying "issues" and "positions" -- then why do they get
upset when a politician dares to take an opposite position on an issue
the PAC cares about?

I understand the "cost" of marketing, advertising, and disseminating
one's message these days. I'm in the media business; I get it.

But we're not talking about a box of Cheerios or a bottle of Coke,
here. We're talking about the unbiased election of men and women who
will serve us in government. And we're talking about the ageless lure
of money, and how it "corrupts absolutely" the normal elective processes
of American republicanism.

Therefore, you cannot compare political "marketing" to product
marketing. Americans are not electing a "product," they're electing
real human beings who end up with the power over our pocketbooks, our
futures, and our very lives.

If the process is corrupt, then corrupt people will partake of the
process. It's just that simple.

No, politics and money don't mix. If you want to reform politics,
the first thing to do is to take the "profit" out of it.