• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

Central to its mission since 1999 has been the argument that the existing system of campaign funding is broken. As it wrote in its first campaign financing report,

The vast majority of citizens feel that money threatens the basic fairness and integrity of our political system. Two out of three Americans think that money has an “excessive influence” on elections and government policy. Substantial majorities in poll after poll agree that “Congress is largely owned by the special interest groups,” or that special interests have “too much influence over elected officials.” Fully two-thirds of the public think that “their own representative in Congress would listen to the views of outsiders who made large political contributions before a constituent’s views.”

These findings, typical of the results of public opinion surveys conducted in recent years, indicate a deep cynicism regarding the role of money in politics. Many citizens have lost faith in the political process and doubt their ability as individuals to make a difference in our nation’s political life. Americans see rising campaign expenditures, highly publicized scandals and allegations regarding fundraising practices, and a dramatic growth in unregulated money flowing into elections.52

The CED was “deeply concerned about these negative public attitudes toward government and the role of money in the political process.” It was “also concerned about the effects of the campaign finance system on the economy and business.” For “[i]f public policy decisions are made—or appear to be made—on the basis of political contributions, not only will policy be suspect, but its uncertain and arbitrary character will make business planning less effective and the economy less productive.”

The solution, the CED argues, is for business to be less tied to campaign fund-raising. “We wish,” as the report states, “to compete in the marketplace, not in the political arena.”53 Because, again, that competition doesn’t create wealth or produce new jobs. It just fuels the very rent seeking that all good conservatives should oppose.

The CED does. More should.

CHAPTER 13

How So Little Money Makes Things Worse

At the start of the Soviet Union, the average salary of members of the Politburo was said to be not far from the salary of the average worker.1 This equality expressed an ideal within the Soviet system—the ideal that the USSR was a workers’ state and that state employees, even leaders, were no better than other workers.

That expression was a lie. While the formal salary of members of the Politburo was close to the average salary for Soviet workers, the effective salary was much, much higher. Members of the Politburo got vacation homes (dachas), access to Western stores, government-issued cars with drivers, foreign publications, better health care, and better opportunities for their kids. Meaning government employees were in effect actually highly paid relative to the average worker, or anyone else in Soviet life. The only way to make more in the Soviet system was to be a criminal (assuming there was a sharp distinction between members of the Politburo and criminals).

America isn’t the Soviet Union. But in a weird way, our Congress is quickly becoming a kind of Politburo. Tenure for members of Congress now exceeds the average tenure of members of the Politburo. (House: ten years. Senate: twelve years.2 Politburo: just over nine years.3) And more troubling is the way that Congress effectively inflates its salary. Through games quite Soviet, many members of Congress live like millionaires, even though their take-home salary is the same as the very best students who graduate from Harvard Law School in their first year practicing law.

Now let me be clear about the criticism I intend to offer in this chapter. The salaries of key officials in our government strike many as high. Some believe them too high. The last amendment to our Constitution was for the very purpose of blocking any salary increase for members of Congress until