Republic, Lost_ How Money Corrupts Congress--And a Plan to Stop It - Lawrence Lessig [59]
Sometimes the politicians admit as much. In 1905 an aging senator Thomas Collier Platt of New York “acknowledged receiving cash contributions to his campaigns from the insurance companies, and in return for that money he admitted that he had ‘a moral obligation to defend them.’ ”18
Most of the time, however, they deny it. They insist that their judgment is independent of campaign cash. They insist they haven’t been affected. “It is insulting,” I’ve been told, “to suggest that my actions have been influenced by my contributors. They have not, and never will be.”
America doesn’t believe the denials. The vast majority of Americans believe money buys results in Congress: 75 percent believe “campaign contributions buy results in Congress.”19 And this commonsense view is confirmed, albeit more subtly, by some current members of Congress, and more frequently by former members of Congress. In an excellent series, the Center for Responsive Politics has interviewed retired members of Congress about the influence of money in politics. Again and again, both Democrats and Republicans insist that of course the money matters. For example:
Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.; 1995–2001) (yes, that Joe Scarborough): “Across the spectrum, money changed votes. Money certainly drove policy at the White House during the Clinton administration, and I’m sure it has in every other administration too.”20
Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.; 1981–1987, 1989–2001) (Asked: Have you seen votes in the Senate where you just knew that certain votes were lining up certain ways because of the money?): “The answer to that question certainly has been yes.”21
Rep. Tim Penny (D-Minn.; 1983–1995): “There’s not tit for tat in business, no check for a vote. But nonetheless, the influence is there. Candidates know where their money is coming from.”22
Rep. Mel Levine (D-Calif.; 1983–1993): “On the tax side, the appropriations side, the subsidy side, and the expenditure side, decisions are clearly weighted and influenced… by who has contributed to the candidates. The price that the public pays for this process, whether it’s in subsidies, taxes, or appropriations, is quite high.”23
Rep. Eric Fingerhut (D-Ohio; 1993–1995): “The completely frank and honest answer is that the method of campaign funding that we currently have… has a serious and profound impact on not only the issues that are considered in Congress, but also on the outcome of those issues.”24
Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.; 1979–1997): “We’ve reached a point where nothing but money seems to matter. Political parties have lost their original purpose, which was to bring people together… and instead they become primarily conduits for cash.”25
Even when members think they’re denying an effect, their denial just confirms that the effect is real. Former senator Slade Gorton, a supporter of the current system, commented, “It just seemed to me that those who were trying to buy influence on both sides were simply wasting their money.”26 Does that mean that those who bought on only one side were not wasting their money? Or as Representative Hamilton Fish IV (R-N.Y.; 1969–1995) commented: “I look at a contribution as a ‘thank you’ for the position I took, not as expecting that I would take a position in the future…. [It was] a reward, not a bribe.”27 But of course, we use rewards to induce people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do all the time. Why not here?
Most of us believe that the money has an influence. Former members from both political parties confirm it. That influence, we believe, bends the results of Congress from what they otherwise would have been. That constitutes, for the vast majority of Americans, proof enough of the corruption that is our government. This is the common view.
As I’ve said, our common view could be right. It could also be wrong. Indeed, as I describe