The Blagojevich scandal, which has put Illinois politics on the front pages of every national newspaper, at first glance appears to be an isolated ethics issue - politician abusing his office for financial gain. Blagojevich clearly has a low set of ethical standards, however, the real culprit in this scandal is a pay to play political system where political access and influence are bought through campaign contributions. And unfortunately, most of the country is currently run under this kind of political system.
The prevailing system of privately financing political campaigns encourages and promotes the kind of behavior that will most likely land Blagojevich in jail. In fact, private financing of campaigns actually rewards politicians like Blagojevich who are willing to do anything to raise campaign cash - such as
threatening to deny state reimbursement for a Children's Hospital unless the hospital's president agrees to donate $50,000 to the campaign.
Blagojevich may have been caught, but politicians engage in these kinds of quid-pro-quo practices all the time because that is what the prevailing campaign financing system requires.
The state of Illinois is particularly susceptible to such corruption
because it has some of the most lax campaign finance laws in the
country.
"Illinois is the wild west in terms of campaign finance laws," says Arn Pearson, VP of Programs at Common Cause. A
2007 report put out by the Brennan Center for Justice, reports that Illinois has the worst campaign finance laws in the Midwest.
The study finds that an absence of any campaign contribution limits or public financing, limited disclosure, and poor enforcement of existing campaign finance laws are pushing campaign costs through the roof and fueling a pay-to-play culture that threatens to undermine public confidence in state and local government.
With such inadequate campaign finance laws, it should come as no surprise that Blagojevich is just one out of many Illinois governors that has been indicted on corruption charges in the last 40 years.
Blagojevich is the fourth out of the state's past eight governors to be indicted on corruption charges. Democrat Otto Kerner (1961-68), Democrat Dan Walker (1973-77), and Republican George Ryan (1999-2003) preceded him. A fifth governor, Republican William Stratton (1953-1961), was charged with income tax evasion but later acquitted.
In addition to his threats to withhold money from sick children, Blagojevich has also been accused of trying to auction off President-elect Obama's now vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder, trying to set up a high paying job for him and his wife upon leaving office in exchange for political favors, appointing large campaign contributors to state boards and awarding them lucrative state contracts.
Blagojevich is no shining example of an honest public servant, that much is clear, but this corruption scandal should shed light on other political deal makings that stink of corruption just the same, yet are considered legal in today's inadequate and corrosive campaign finance system.
When Blagojevich awards a lucrative state contract to a large campaign contributor it's called illegal, but when the Bush administration awards billions of dollars worth of no-bid reconstruction contracts in Iraq to a company Vice President Cheney used to run (Halliburton), it's considered legal.
When Blagojevich appoints someone to a state board in exchange for a large campaign contribution it's called illegal, but when President Bush appoints a large campaign contributor (Michael Brown) to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - someone who was
completely unqualified for the job and bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina - it's considered legal.
When Blagojevich tries to make deals to receive a high paying position at a non-profit organization once he leaves office it's called illegal, but when former Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA)
pushed the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Bill through congress and then left his house seat early to accept a position as a high paid lobbyists for the very industry that benefited from the passage of that bill, at the time it was considered legal.
These examples of "politics as usual" expose a system that is easily exploited by special interests who seek to influence public policy through the use of their wallets.
Nancy Benac of the
Huffington Post lays out why this type of campaign financing system creates a gray area in terms of what's legal and illegal in terms of providing political favors in exchange for financial favors.
Politicians make deals every day. They do favors and ask them in return. They kowtow to campaign contributors.
It may be unsavory, but it's often perfectly legal.
The prosecutors who arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich say his conduct went far beyond politics-as-usual into a shocking pattern of corruption. But where's the line?
There's a vast gray area in which political deal making flourishes.
President-elect Barack Obama acknowledged as much Thursday, speaking of wheelers and dealers who ask "what's in it for me?"
The charges against Blagojevich represent "the far end of the spectrum of that business mentality of politics," Obama said.
"But there are more subtle examples of it, right, that are within the lines of legality but still don't fulfill the spirit of service."
Joseph diGenova, a former prosecutor now in private practice, said political corruption can be a bit like obscenity _ hard to describe, but "you know it when you see it."
He said it's especially hard to prove criminal behavior involving campaign contributions, as opposed to personal enrichment.
"It's not like, 'Gimme $50,000 in a black bag and I'll give you the nomination,'" diGenova said.
"People give campaign contributions and expect things in exchange," he said. "It's all perfectly legal."
So it's a given that politicians sometimes indulge in a form of give-and-take.
Politics does not have to be like this. Citizens do not have to accept a system that compromises on the very ideals on which our democracy is founded - equality, justice, and accountability. Instead, we can support public financing of campaigns and eliminate this system of legalized bribery.
Public financing of campaigns is a very simple concept that both politicians and voters alike are starting to embrace. There are several states and localities across the country that have implemented public financing in order to remove the conflicts of interests that plague the political process and generate cynicism about our democracy.
In 1996, Maine became the first state to implement a public financing system, dubbed "clean elections." This voluntary system allows candidates to run their campaign using public funds. Candidates qualify for public funds after collecting a large number of small $5 donations from voters in their district to prove they have broad public support. In exchange for accepting public funds the candidate is not allowed to raise or spend any private money and must adhere to strict spending limits.
Today, 84% of the Maine legislature is made up of "clean candidates" - politicians who opted into the system, did not take a dime from any special interest and can serve the public interest without being beholden to any campaign contributor.
Several other states have followed Maine's example.
Arizona has had a clean elections system since 2000. Their Governor and the next Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, ran and won twice using the system. North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Connecticut also have this type of public financing at one level or another.
The success of public financing is continuing to grow. In 2007, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced the
Fair Elections Now Act (SB 1285), which would create a public financing system, similar to the one in Maine and Arizona, for all House and Senate races.
In the 2008 elections, 81% of the candidates who ran in
Connecticut used public financing, demonstrating the effectiveness and appeal of such a system.
Public financing of campaigns fundamentally changes the dynamic of who can run for office, how they run their campaigns, and to whom they are accountable once in office. With public financing, candidates don't have to be independently wealthy or willing to cater to large campaign contributors in order to have enough money to run a competitive campaign. Elected officials no longer have to spend large portions of their time raising money from industries who want to influence legislation. All voters, not just big campaign donors, become the focus of shaping policy. That's a campaign financing system that encourages leadership for the public good, as opposed to a private financing system that politicians like Blagojevich can exploit for their own personal gain.
Fortunately, the emerging political climate is favorable for public financing advocates. Americans came out in large numbers this election supporting candidates who both promised change and reform. A
recent poll found that 69% of Americans support public financing of campaigns.
Election week polling (conducted November 3-5, 2008) of likely voters shows overwhelming support for a system of voluntary public financing of elections that includes a ban on lobbyist contributions and accepting only small contributions. This support is backed by a widespread belief we need to change the way elections are financed.
Voters also strongly agree that large campaign contributions from the financial industry and lobbyists helped create the current financial crisis and are a major impediment to making progress on pressing major issues like the economy, health care, and rising energy costs.
In addition, President-elect Obama was actually a co-signer of the Fair Election Now Act when he was in the Senate.
He may have opted out of the presidential public financing system, but did so with the realization that it is in need of an upgrade to meet the needs of 21st century campaigns.
He has also supported sweeping ethics reform bills in both the Illinois state senate and the U.S. senate. In fact, Obama's support for ethics reform may have
played a role in Blagojevich's downfall.
In a sequence of events that neatly captures the contradictions of Barack Obama's rise through Illinois politics, a phone call he made three months ago to urge passage of a state ethics bill indirectly contributed to the downfall of a fellow Democrat he twice supported, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich.
Mr. Obama placed the call to his political mentor, Emil Jones Jr., president of the Illinois Senate. Mr. Jones was a critic of the legislation, which sought to curb the influence of money in politics, as was Mr. Blagojevich, who had vetoed it.
But after the call from Mr. Obama, the Senate overrode the veto, prompting the governor to press state contractors for campaign contributions before the law's restrictions could take effect on Jan. 1, prosecutors say.
We must ask ourselves, how many corrupt politicians need to be splashed across the front pages of newspapers until we realize its the pay-to-pay political system that is the real culprit - enabling the kinds of political schemes for which Blagojevich is being indicted. Public financing of campaigns is the way for America to bring accountability back to government, restore integrity to public service, and keep corruptible people like Blagojevich out of office!
