“Baby, they diggin' my potatoes
Lord, they trampin' on my vine…”
So goes the Big Bill Broonzy
blues song. The song, for those unfamiliar
with frequently met double entendres in blues music, is not really about
potatoes or vines.
Never found my baby
'Cause she was layin' in another townI know she's diggin' my potatoes
Lord, she's trampin' on my vine
The blues rarely miss the right
chords concerning human nature. We are territorial animals – Get off my
farm! Grieving over large campaign
contributions made by one-percenters to politicians dispensing favors has in
the past been territory staked out by populist Democrats. Until now.
Crony capitalism has become a
bi-partisan affair. Perhaps that was always the case: If politician A has the
means to assist crony capitalist B, and B has the capital resources to aid A,
the match would appear to be one made in political heaven.
To be sure, there are – thanks
mostly to Democratic politicians who have stalked out the territory – campaign
finance regulations aimed at preventing the more gaudy forms of political
corruption that arises from close relationships between those who design
regulations and the subjects of the regulation. But in politics there are
always loopholes to be exploited, money hungry politicians, and exhausted or
indifferent watchdog agencies, many of which find themselves pressed under the
thumbs of politicians they are supposed to be scrutinizing.
When unannounced Republican
Party gubernatorial prospect Tom Foley a few months ago suggested that the news
media might want to have a closer look at some irregularities involving
Governor Dannel Malloy, he was given the Big Bill Broonzy bum’s rush – Get off
my farm! Stop trampling on my vines! You’ve been layin around in another town.
And a Republican town at that!
Here is Mr. Foley’s most recent
declamation against the Malloyalists’ too cozy relationship with Big Business
campaign financiers as it appeared in a column in the Journal Inquirer.
Mr. Foley begins by noting that
the last Republican governor, Jodi Rell, the object of much hilarity in
Democratic quarters as a mere shadow of the current gubernatorial dynamo, did
in fact make some progress in prohibiting “state government contractors and
lobbyists from making political donations directly to state campaigns.”
This baby step forward was
frustrated by a bill engineered by Mr. Malloy and the Democratic dominated
General Assembly that “allows state contractors and lobbyists to donate up to
$10,000 to a state political party, which in turn can spend the money on its
nominee’s campaign for state office. Many state government contractors and
lobbyists have already done this in the amount of hundreds of thousands of
dollars that likely will be spent to re-elect the governor next year.”
Mr. Foley then listed some of
the more prominent crony capitalists that have taken advantage of the loophole:
“…executives of HAKS Group, a state government contractor, recently gave
$45,000 to the Connecticut Democratic Party. Executives of Northeast Utilities,
a state-regulated utility, gave $54,000 to the party. Executives of Manafort
Brothers, a contractor for the Hartford-New Britain busway, gave $14,000, while
$22,500 came from lobbyists.”
In the column, Mr. Foley throws
down an armor plated gauntlet. He first makes a distinction between
“contributions motivated by party affiliation, ideology, or a belief that a
candidate is the better representative of the public interest,” which will be
encouraged, and “contributions made primarily to facilitate a personal or
organizational benefit,” which will be disallowed. This is followed by a
campaign pledge: “If I become a candidate, I will ask Connecticut’s Republican
Party not to accept contributions from anyone prohibited from contributing to
my campaign… If I am elected governor I will seek to disallow these tainted
contributions to our state political parties because they erode public
confidence. I will also seek to prohibit state government contractors who make
contributions to the state parties from receiving new state contracts for five
years.”
It may be possible for a strong
governor to discourage state contractors from making campaign contributions to
individual politicians; the gubernatorial bully pulpit is sometimes an
effective moral rostrum, and such contributions have been looked upon
unfavorably by some courts. But it may not be possible to prohibit campaign
contributions flowing from crony capitalists to political parties, a golden
stream later laundered by the parties and distributed to individual
politicians. Money will find a way, and clever politicians will always be able
to drive a superhighway through campaign finance cul-de-sacs. An absolute
prohibition of campaign contributions to parties from companies and quasi
political organization such as unions could occur only after the repeal of U.S.
Constitutional prescriptions. The moral suasion of a governor would have to be
very intense indeed to persuade his own party to forego an advantage the loyal
opposition would seek to exploit.
So then, where are we?
On the farm – watching Mr.
Foley diggin Democratic potatoes, tramplin on their vines. And the outrage certain
to pour from the usual Democratic fonts at this moral interloper will be a
wonder to watch.
What Connecticut really needs
to nudge morally agnostic politicians towards the path of righteousness is a
ferociously aggressive Inspector General, armed with subpoena power, thoroughly
independent of governors, courts, and political parties. A term in prison for
corrupt crony capitalists and their political facilitators is the best remedy for
what ails Corrupticut.
Comments
-----
I'm inclined doubt that we can control or eliminate the problem with campaign finance laws. I'm not sure to what extent I oppose such laws in themselves apart from their futility.
Not that I recommend the behavior, but I'm not so upset about the pay-to-play corruption we saw, for example, with Treasurer Silvestre. There is a violation of trust in the improper self-aggrandizement, but there is not necessarily financial harm to the State or its taxpayers. I recall no suggestion, for example, that Silvestre's chosen brokers mishandled the State's investments.
But, the Malloy operation known variously as "First Five," "Next Five," and "Very Next Five" is simply taking money from the people, taxpayers or State and giving it to entities the Executive Branch thinks would make good beneficiaries. I haven't heard any body say it's illegal, but if the Constitution of 1965 doesn't prohibit this sort of thing I'd say it's not a particularly useful Constitution. Ditto on the legality of public sector unions, whose relationship to the Democrat sworn representatives of the people goes beyond cronyism into explicit conflict of interest.
It seems to me the best way to attack the problem of money and politicians is also the best way to address our fiscal mess. The government should take it upon itself to do less, and those things it does should be run in a less intrusive way, a way more dependent on free markets.
Let's imagine the good all around that would ensue, for example, if we Nutmeggers were to use a voucher program for education as we do for food. Contractors involved in building and maintaining school buildings would not be involved with pols. The teachers would not be forced at gunpoint to fund the Democratic Party through a labor union. And, the schools would be accountable to students and their parents, unlike the government monopoly district schools we presently insist on preserving.