• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

DeLay’s behavior was extreme, and to some, ultimately criminal. In 1995 the Washington Post reported on a “book” that [DeLay] kept on a table in the anteroom of his Capitol Hill office, which listed “friendly” and “unfriendly” companies, industries, and associations.37 Lobbyists would use the book to determine whether DeLay would meet with them—“friendlies,” yes; others, no—and the cheapest way to keep on the right side of that line was campaign cash.

Not all of this behavior by these Republicans was illegal (though DeLay was convicted of money laundering).38 Yet it all produced a kind of systematic corruption. Indeed, so tempting was it to the Republican leadership to feed this dependency that after coming to power, the caucus very quickly decided to give up on its stated goal of shrinking the size of government, so that it could use the power of majority status to more effectively pursue its goal of securing control of the government. As Kaiser describes it:

Republicans took over the House Appropriations Committee determined to cut the government down to size. Their ambitions were soon compromised. Jim Dyer, the staff director of the committee under Congressman Bob Livingston of Louisiana, who became chairman of Appropriations in 1995, recalled what happened. Gingrich initially supported Livingston’s efforts to impose discipline on spending, Dyer recounted, but in the face of perceived political necessity, the leadership wavered. Cutting spending was good, but Gingrich, Armey, DeLay, and others quickly realized that “we have another aspect to our existence here, which is that we must use the Appropriations Committee as a resource to protect our vulnerables, because once we got into power, we wanted to stay in power.”39

In this way, dependence corruption is an enabler for both venal and systematic corruption. A feeder drug. It makes both venal corruption easier, and systematic corruption more likely. It does this by creating conditions that feel normal, or justified, but that breed both forms of corruption. Knowing that there are members of Congress dependent upon campaign cash, private interests exploit that dependency, by seeking special benefits from the government (“rents”) and returning the favor ever so indirectly with campaign contributions. And knowing that they are so dependent upon private support, members of Congress will work to keep their fingers in as much of private life as possible, if only to ensure that there are souls interested in securing sensible regulatory policy (in the way such policy is secured—through the proper dance of campaign funding). Because this is “just the way things are done,” no one need feel guilty, or evil, by participating in this system. Jack Abramoff was evil. But a lobbyist arranging a fund-raising event for a target member of Congress is “just doing his job.”

It’s this distinction, I believe, that Representative Tony Coelho (D-Calif.; 1979–1989) was trying to draw in what otherwise seems a bizarrely weird comment. As he told Robert Kaiser, “The press always tries… to say that you’ve been bought out. I don’t buy that…. I think that the process buys you out. But I don’t think that you individually have been bought out, or that you sell out. I think there’s a big difference there.”40

There is a big difference. Individuals live within a system that demands certain attentions. Certain sensibilities. As those sensibilities are perfected, the representative begins to function on automatic pilot. And when she bends, she’s not bending because of a particular interest. She’s bending because of a process she has learned, and perfected. As Kaiser puts it, these are “ordinary people responding logically to powerful incentives.”41 There’s nothing else to do. It isn’t selling out. It is surviving.

Dependence corruption also helps throw into relief a (possible) blindness in the Supreme Court’s recent authority, apparently limiting the reach of campaign funding regulation. That at least was the implication of the Court