With all the corporate money flooding our electoral process these days, Matt Stoller offers a timely reminder of another, equally valuable tool in the corruptor’s toolkit:
The dirty secret of American politics is that, for most politicians, getting elected is just not that important. What matters is post-election employment. It’s all about staying in the elite political class, which means being respected in a dense network of corporate-funded think tanks, high-powered law firms, banks, defense contractors, prestigious universities, and corporations…. Running as a vague populist is manageable, as long as you’re lying to voters. If you actually go after powerful interests while in office, then you better win, because if you don’t, you’ll have basically nowhere to go. And if you lose, but you were a team player, then you’ll have plenty of money and opportunity….
I think Stoller is probably understating politicians’ desire to win (there’s ego, power, maybe even a misguided belief that they’re doing good), but it’s still important to recognize that pols are not as afraid of the electoral consequences of bad behavior as we might hope.
Remember, they’re not choosing between doing the right thing and unemployment – they’re choosing between doing the right thing and cashing in. They’re probably also betting that avalanches of campaign contributions and independent expenditures will give the voters amnesia, as it so often does. They have every incentive to sell out, and no incentive at all to stand up, except maybe the prick of their vestigial consciences.
Whether it be campaign spending, deferred quid pro quo, or immediate quid pro quo in the form of sweetheart deals and cushy jobs for family members, corruption boils down to one simple concept: If you play ball, we’ll take care of you. As long as anyone but the American electorate is in a position to say that to the people in our government, we will never truly be a democracy.



62 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
OMG! It’s (thank Dawg) it’s Eli!
Thank you sir. You know (sticking my finger in my cheek) it seems somehow unfair that I have always paid consequences in my life for bad behavior.
Stomping my foot.
Hiya, demi!
Obviously you’re not engaging in the right kind of bad behavior.
I have to admit, there have been a few times I flirted with that behavior, and even that made me feel bad, very bad.
What do you imagine the verdict against bad boy Johnny will be?
Pretty boys will break your heart every mother time, just in case some people haven’t either figured it out, or haven’t have the pleasure yet.
John Edwards? His bad behavior did not benefit corporations in any way other than ending his political career and essentially removing his Two Americas narrative from the national conversation forever, so he’s toast.
Eli!
And here’s the grand capstone to the whole scheme: we can’t do a damned thing to stop them because they make the laws.
Forget the toast.
Did you arrange this exchange between us with anything particular in mind?
I mean, it’s so quiet and intimate, and I think I’m starting to hear violins.
Yep, that’s the fundamental roadblock: How do you get corrupt greedy assholes to dry up their gravy train?
Differ on at least 3 fronts.
King of the Mountain, i.e. getting elected, is of paramount importance. Both for its own sake (ego, power), which you state Eli. And for the benefits that follow.
Not THE Other Corruption, but ANOTHER Corruption.
Finally choosing the “right” thing vs. cashing in. They have NO interest in choosing what is good for the 99ers. Only interested in figuring out how to fool public into thinking doing right is a consideration so they can benefit personally.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Fine, just Fine, EeeeevilDrPuma.
See what you did?
Peeing in their gravy seems a logical start.
ELI!
1) I think it varies, but being forced to “settle” for seven figures a year is a pretty nice consolation prize.
2) Agree with that, I think the sweetheart deals they and their families get while they’re in office is the third major leg of the corruption stool.
3) I thought that’s what I said.
I’m in favor of it, but not sure how that would actually work…
KELLY!
Corruption makes them wealthy and connected. So they “try out”, audition, for their favorite plutocrat. But the field of corruption is not at all limited to politicians.
I’m not sure how one gets the revolving-door to stop revolving either with people elected, or people un-elected going back and forth from private to public “service” either.
But I do like the idea of making somehow, some way, a portion of it quite painful.
For the electeds an easy way is a bill that you, Mr/Ms elected rep can’t rep privately in an industry sector in which you voted for benefits for that industry sector for x amount of time, like 5 years after leaving gov service.
But getting that bill to pass? Impossible.
On rereading, you seem to have inferred in your first sentence in that paragraph that they face a choice, but perhaps meant to conclude that they don’t view it as a choice at all, which I may have missed. That was the point I was emphasizing. No pol cares a single bit for voters, under the minor, and now de minimus constraint post CU.
Organizations, media, pundits in general, unelected government employees…
We kinda talked about this the other night. I think we do have to get the money out of politics, the super pacs and the unlimited spending. Anything can be bought to the point you never know for sure when you are being played. So you just don’t trust any of them.
ELI!!! The New World Order dictates that the elites do not have to pay for bad behavior. I think it’s a new dictate that everyone on the planet should be receiving in the mail shortly.
Yeah, I had a few ideas along those lines, and they’re all probably unconstitional, impractical, and/or gameable (“Why, I didn’t accept any money at all from ExxonMobil, they just happened to make a sizable donation to one of my charitable nonprofit organizations.”)
Haha, best answer so far!!!
I like that plan.
Many (most?) pols are recruited by the PTB long before they run. Got to go thru the hazing to qualify. Most don’t. So you can infer the level of corruption that exists among those who successfully pass through the tailgating.
I prefer to think of them as courtesans. Can’t really be thought of as employees because that implies they actually “work.”
Yes, they have far too much influence on people’s thinking. On the other hand, everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it is flat wrong like that guy Rick Santelli on CNBC. I wonder if the money went away would we still be hearing the nonsense from him and FAux news.
Absolutely they face a choice. My point was that it’s a choice between doing the right thing or just cashing in a little sooner than expected, and that it’s *not* a choice between doing the right thing and being unemployed.
So they either:
A) Do the right thing and lose their campaign support and employment prospects.
B) Play ball and get re-elected thanks to the generosity of their sugardaddies, or…
C) Play ball and get voted out, with a nice lucrative soft landing thanks to said sugardaddies.
So the only motivation to do the right thing is either conscience, or a burning desire to stay in office at all costs, while *also* believing that doing the wrong thing will be fatal to their re-election prospects.
Hangers’ on. Wannabes. Slaves. Lotsa characterizations to describe suckups to PTB. Some really do WORK at it.
And the link to that database or research paper proving that is where? And what level, class of elected representatives – municipal, county State Fed?
That research would be quite welcome.
BLUETOE!!! What do you mean, “new dictate”?
You & I are talking past each other. I’m eliminating the word choice, not bc there isn’t one, but bc they don’t ever think about their being a choice.
Oh sure, I believe that. They start early. I went to college with a guy who flat out said he was going to work for whatever the big shots wanted. He did and he made out well.
And I’m using it to say that there is a choice, but a very very easy one.
I’ll show you my database if you show me yours.
I’ll start. Paul Street’s first book on Obama.
Fair enough.
It’s an “officical” communique from the PTB. I got mine in the mail today. Yours will arrive shortly I’m sure. Previously it was just implied, now it’s official.
It’s the “new” part that I’m hung up on…
Knew lots of folks like that.
Advised one about 2 years ago. Why he came to me for advice is a mystery, but he wanted to know if there were still a future in the fin ind. I told him I thought the corruption would go on for a lot longer.
I didn’t make a claim needing support, so I don’t have a need to point to a database or research. You, however, did.
Your riposte is merely anecdotal vis-a-vis Street’s book, rather than a set of facts to support your claim. Which is fine.
If you ain’t got the proof you ain’t got it, and you’re just making an opinion, rather than a claim of fact, which is also totally fine.
Got it.
Does anyone seriously believe the financial industry was not corrupt along with the enabling Wizards at the fed? There have been books written about it and the internet is still full of blogs about the lying. Oh hell, just think about that system called MERS. But then these were in large part just ordinary private people in purusit of profit and permitted to continue by a government looking the other way.
Not arguing that point.
The sad part is there probably isn’t any way of stopping this kind of corruption without violating some peoples rights. Which strikes many as wrong. But I just don’t see how else you do it. At least I don’t see any other way to do it effectively.
I mean, don’t most of us consider it a right to be able choose where we work??? No, I don’t mean we consider it a right to work whereever we want, I mean if we are offered X number of jobs, isn’t it considered our right to accept the one we want? If feels like that’s a right, but maybe not. If it’s not, it feels like it ought to be.
It just feels wrong for the government to tell any citizen “you can’t work at X Corp” no matter how badly you want to and how badly they want you to.
Yet anything short of that just doesn’t seem like it work.
Except I don’t really believe these were just “ordinary” people trying to make a buck.
Hi, Eli, your blog really touches me, have been reading it for awhile… Just wanted you to know about a website i started ReadYourBiblesChurch.com… It’s a place for Bible study guides.. I also put a forum in that can be viewed from a mobile device.. I couldn’t find where to contact you privately so I’m commenting, hope that is okay. :) God Bless!
Jenn.
No corporate contributions? Abolish electoral college? Winner, win by popular vote? Establish term limits? Publicly fund and shorten election cycle?
Presented as an Con Amendment for ratification by states in an initiative petition process by vote, necessary to protect the “Bill of Rights” under assault by corporations, enabled by politicians and courts, who have gutted America and Americans like a depleted codfish?
I think I agree with what you say except I am not sure how I violate one’s rights if we agree on some set of rules of the road and then enforce them.
I’ll vote for something like that for sure. The electoral college surely must go. It would enable more parties, but then we have to decide on run offs. Personally, I would do away with the senate and have something like a parliament. But that’s neither here nor there.
Yep, I have the same difficulty. Although if there’s any group of American citizens who deserve to have their rights curtailed, it’s corrupt politicians.
Unfortunately, if non-corrupt politicians vote in favor of, say, green energy companies or universities or humanitarian organizations, they wouldn’t be able to work for any of those either. Irony.
Do you suppose that to some extent a corrupt politician is in the eye of the beholder?
Eli! Your blog really touches me too!
Well, there’s always going to be some kind of quid pro quo no matter what. If you vote in favor of the environment, environmentalists are going to contribute to your campaign, and environmental organizations will probably be happy to offer you a job fairly high in their food chain.
But I’m pretty sure that the size of the contributions and salary from an environmental agency (especially a non-greenwashing one) pale in comparison to what they could get from the corporate for-profit sector.
Buzz! I usually only get those kinds of glowing testimonials on my home blog…
It’s more complicamated than that. Not that the complications matter in the grand scheme. Just matter bc its interesting & instructive to look at how real peeps make real decisions and to understand the way the world works.
For example, no money manager who perceives a bubble can afford to sell too soon, as I did. I missed 50% (6 months) of the dot-com bubble that way. Were it not my own portfolio, I would have been out of biz. For those who were managing OPM, they would have been out of biz. I still had my portfolio.
A PM who sells too late is in the mainstream and can use the excuse: who coulda guessed.
Money is the thing that seperates what will ultimately lead to corruption IMO. But most people can get paid well for doing a job without being corrupt. But size, as you say, makes the difference. That’s why it has to go. In the end we will have to face up to income inequality as well. Those at the very top have little in common with us.
Ugh, that didn’t come out exactly as I wanted. Time to quit.
Increasingly less so.
Part of the race to the bottom.
Take Eli’s word for it. LOLOL
Are you really this dense? eCAHNomics @22 didn’t mean P.T. Barnum. To you I suppose Joseph P. Kennedy’s sperm frenzy well before he went to the Court of St. james was for anecdotal posterity. The fruits of my own research and study: Vito always thought Sonny would become the Don, not Michael for whom he wanted a Senator Corleone. Whence the marionette strings of the poster.
Unfortunately the situation is a carrot and a stick. If you don’t take the carrot, they will beat you with a stick , that may be a simple as loosing funding, or being entrapped and blackmailed or if you are really a problem you get a plane crash ala Paul Wellstone (a sobering message to all politicians who take the path less traveled).
Politics 101: It’s not important to be right, but it is important to be wrong for the right reasons (and for the right interests).
Eli, I think we have a Badass here.
Ever since Gerald Ford became the first to turn post-presidency into a cash cow by getting paid seats on corporate boards, the course was set for unlimited corruption and the downfall of this republic.
Do you remember when Ronald Reagan getting $2 million for one speech in Japan as soon as he left office was a scandal and condemned? Just 10 years later, Bill Clinton was able to amass $50 million in speaking fees in the years after he left office, along with at least another $50 million in all kinds of hedgy deals.
And no one with the power to stop it is interested in doing it.
How to end the corruption
Thinking along institutional lines, you quickly hit the various dead ends that people have already noted. It all boils down to a bootstrap problem. The rules we want changed are the very ones that prevent the election of any sizable number of legislators who aren’t beholden to big money.
Stop thinking along institutional lines. Stop thinking along the line of adding a law or two to the current de jure regime to deal with this problem. We already have laws against bribery, and such laws are much more broad-spectrum and effective at dealing with this problem than anything you might want to add.
We don’t enforce the laws against bribery for the same reason we stopped enforcing anti-trust laws (just enforcing those laws and breaking up the cartels in health care and health insurance would be for more radical and effective a reform than even Single Payer). We stopped being able to see any sort of crime in rich people running things. The Golden Rule, “Them that have the money make the rules.”, holds sway in our political system because most of us believe that the ability to make gobs of money is proof, and the only proof possible, of competence at public policy.
Now, that’s obviously untrue, both as to competence and, more fundamentally, as to what somebody will do with their competencies once in office. You dont have to be very talented to make gobs of money under crony capitalism — you just need a knack for asserting alpha status in small cliques of fellow alpha wannabes. And you don’t really want to give power to even competent people who want to benefit anything or anybody but the common good. Even if you still needed to be competent to make gobs of money for yourself, that ability wouldn’t say much, at least not much good, about your ability to perceive, and willingness to pursue, the common good.
But you don’t hear much about the common good, or collective interests, or the interests of society, in American politics. Too damned Communist, or at least, damned Socialist. But until and unless we can get people to start thinking in those terms, they will continue to believe that people smart enough to make loads of money are exactly who we need running things in this country. If you change their beliefs, they would tend to vote against candidates who spend loads of money on TV commercials, for no other reason than the conspicuous consumption of money that has to have come from some paymaster other than the public. On juries, they would be willing to convict politicians and businesscritters of bribery. We wouldn’t need new laws. Even if we had new laws, they would languish as unenforced as the laws we already have against bribery, until and unless we change the climate of opinion that keeps the very idea of the common good out of our politics.