Yesterday came the announcement that Senator Obama’s campaign had raised a record-setting $150 million in September, shattering previous fundraising records.
Senator McCain, predictably enough, began carping about "scandal" and Watergate. On Fox News Sunday, he said "Senator Obama raised $150 million… completely breaking whatever idea we had after Watergate to keep the costs and spending on campaigns under control… And I can tell you this, that has unleashed now in presidential campaigns a new flood of spending that will then cause a scandal, and then we will fix it again."
What Senator McCain overlooks, of course, is that real corruption typically has very little connection to campaign spending or contributions. Common Cause, normally a font of useless and distorted information, actually makes this point rather well at their Scandal Map, an interactive feature that maps scandals related to elected officials.
Noticeably absent among nearly all the scandals cited are campaign contributions. There’s a few scattered references to scandals with a fundraising component, but by and large it’s a map of common corruption, elected officials trading favors for under-the-table bribes, free trips, hookers, and all sorts of other goodies.
The corruption documented by Common Cause is an indication of human frailty and temptation, not campaign finance "corruption."
Buried at the end of Senator McCain’s comments is a nugget of truth, however, or at least an acknowledgement of reality. It is almost inevitable that there will be a scandal in an Obama administration, or in a McCain administration. With trillions of dollars in federal spending being managed by thousand of political appointees and millions of federal employees, it defies human nature to believe that there won’t be multiple instances of corrupt individuals lining their own pockets, or enriching their friends and allies.
And when "scandal" erupts, McCain is right – Congress will move to "fix it again," acting on the same faulty assumption that if only they could "get money out of politics" then corruption could be limited. And the results, of course, are utterly predictable – whatever "reforms" are adopted will entail greater limits on the speech of citizens, and with no discernable impact on lessening corruption, real or imagined. Leading to another round of "reform," of course.
So, Senator Obama, while your opponent throws around loaded words like "Watergate" and "scandal," and while your erstwhile friends in the "reform" movement fret about "undue influence" and the "buying of the White House," we at the Center for Competitive Politics would like to extend our sincere congratulations to you on your magnificent fundraising achievement, which ensures that you will have sufficient funds to communicate your message to as many American voters as possible.
While some, including your opponent, think the American public would be better off hearing less political speech from candidates, we are encouraged by your recognition that this is an important election (as all of them are), and the public deserves to hear from you on what your beliefs and priorities are. By choosing to opt out of the taxpayer-funded system, you chose not to artificially limit your ability to speak to the public. We hope that, if you are elected President, you will reflect on the important role private contributions played in allowing you to communicate your message to the voters, and recognize that efforts to restrict "money in politics" would effectively limit other candidates for office and limit their ability to speak to the public.
So again, Senator Obama, Congratulations.
