Posted July 19, 2007 by Meredith McGehee and Christopher Mulligan
A Distortion of Democracy 
In his July 16th Department of Human Behavior column in The Washington Post, “Campaign Contributions Change Priorities, Not Beliefs,” Shankar Vedantam makes the argument that the incredible sums of money given by special-interest groups to elected officials hardly amount to widespread corruption, but instead, simply shift our policymakers’ “priorities.” Though vast sums of money being funneled into the political process has only resulted in a handful of dastardly and outright illegal acts by elected officials (see Congressmen Randy “Duke” Cunningham [R-CA], Bob Ney [R-OH], and William Jefferson [D-LA]), the fact that only well-funded interests make it to the forefront of our political discourse is truly a corruption of the process.
Most reform advocates do not argue that financial support in the form of campaign contributions results in a policymaker doing a 180-degree shift on an issue. However, contributions can dictate which issues are actually dealt with, when thousands of issues clamor for a Members’ attention. It’s not that Members of Congress care more about oil than they do starving children, but a simple search of bills introduced this year reveals that the 110th Congress has already considered close to 350 oil-related proposals and only 53 that dealt with hunger.
On the oil front, the proposals cross the spectrum from alternative fuel legislation to the situation in Iraq and were introduced by Republicans and Democrats. So, regardless of whether Members are “pro” or “anti” oil, the astronomical amount of money spent by oil and other energy interests ensures that the issue will retain top billing. Starving or malnourished individuals, on the other hand, have a much smaller lobbying presence, and not surprisingly, a sparse legislative calendar. Does this mean that Members of Congress don’t care about hunger and malnutrition? Of course not. But, it does mean that until starving people from around the globe can excite wealthy individuals to contribute to causes that will, in turn, bankroll campaigns, Congress is far more likely to discuss the dangers of generic prescription drugs coming into the country from Canada instead because of the deep pockets of the pharmaceutical industry.
That is not to say that special-interest groups don’t deserve to have their voices heard. They often represent the viewpoints of large numbers of Americans. However, the tragedy of our current campaign finance system is that the priorities of our elected officials get so skewed that they listen disproportionately to those with money. While campaign contributions may not always result in a “yes” or “no” vote on a particular issue, they do force a debate. Basing the consideration of an issue almost entirely on the financial acumen of the interests and their willingness to pay-to-play in Washington inevitably results in a biased discussion. Conversely, issues that garner widespread support but don’t enjoy the same finances may continually find themselves yelling from outside of the Capitol instead of pulling up the proverbial chair.
This doesn’t mean that Mitt Romney is controlled by real estate groups (who have already contributed more than $1.6 million to his presidential hopes) or that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is a pawn of the entertainment industry (which has given $794,000 to her presidential campaign), but it does mean they’ll expect a seat at the table should their candidate win. They might also expect that seat to be crushed velvet with a higher back than anyone else in the room is given. And, if you weren’t one of the interest groups that participated in the financial arms race that our federal elections have become, then you may just find yourself waiting for a seat to open up for quite some time.
Money doesn’t decide an issue, but in today’s political environment, far too often it decides who has access and influence. In a pay-to-play system, political contributions decide what gets done, and that means that important issues, without the same financial clout, can be left in the dust. Thus, Mr. Vedantam goes a bit off-track in his interpreting his discussions with a (single) political scientist / former congressional fellow as undermining conventional wisdom regarding the dangers of campaign contributions and the threat of real and apparent corruption. His thesis actually backs up public skepticism about the process, because as he points out, if you don’t buy your spot on the legislative calendar the odds are you’re not going to get one.
The number of those hunger bills that have been “referred to committee” to die a quiet death is not only discouraging but tragic. This is much, much more than what the political scientist quoted in the piece describes as a “distortion of priorities.” This is a distortion of democracy. It is also a big reason why both Houses of Congress changed hands last November and may well again in 2008 if the Democrats don’t follow through on their campaign promises to “drain the swamp” and change the way business is done in Washington.
