Opinion: Money has always been a tool, is the biggest danger to honest government
Money has always been the greatest danger to honest government. It has been used as a major tool in the hands of people who want to influence government decisions to favor their special interests. In 1971, Lewis Powell, only months before becoming a Supreme Court Justice, wrote a memo to his friend Eugene Sydnor, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, titled, “Attack on American Free Enterprise System.”
Knowledge of Powell’s wider connections is important for understanding his perspective. He served on the board of a large tobacco company and represented other tobacco companies in his corporate practice. In his memo, Powell warned against “progressive voices for reform” and said that these liberal voices should be attacked. Powell thereby became an influential voice in promoting corporate involvement in government.
I recently read Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s book "The Scheme." In it, he points out that in 1968, just two American companies had public affairs offices in the nation’s capital. Within 10 years, there were 500. When Powell wrote his secret memo in 1971, just 175 companies had registered lobbyists. By 1982, 2,500 did. Whitehouse noted that from the late 1970s to the late 1980s, corporate PACs (Political Action Committees) increased their expenditures in congressional races nearly fivefold, twice as fast as labor PAC spending. According to the non-partisan independent government watchdog group Open Secrets, in 2020, there were about 12,000 registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C., (and many, many more unregistered lobbyists) and more than $3.5 billion was spent on lobbying.
More:Opinion: Political anger: 'It's OK to be angry but don't let it take over your life'
More:Opinion: Since no one is morally perfect, we need a government with checks and balances
Sen. Whitehouse speaks of the “final blow” coming in 2010 with the “appalling decision” in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in the Supreme Court. Like no other, that decision opened the government to the dangers of corporate influence and corruption. It caused the spread of “dark money” in the government, especially in elections. People do not know the sources of dark money. Even though these funds may be reported, they are given vague descriptions so that people can not learn their real source. In this way, certain candidates can be given an enormous advantage over other candidates and at the same time become heavily indebted politically to the donors of the dark money. It is a very undemocratic element in a basic part of operating a democracy.
The old adage of “follow the money” is an important guide for those who let the light fall on the sources of corruption and anti-democratic influences in governments. This shows how much is at stake in uncovering the sources of dark money spent by PACs, individual political candidates, and lobbyists. In addition to dark money, there are outright gifts in the form of dinners, trips, vacations, etc. that obligate candidates to the gift givers. These corrupting influences are highly damaging to a democracy where all people should be treated equally.
More:Opinion: NC's unaffiliated voters are being denied equal rights given to Dems and GOP
There is a great deal of work to be done both in legislation and by the press and writers to expose the flow of money – both the givers and the receivers. In addition to the flow of money, the individuals behind the flow of money need to be placed in the light. Certain individuals and organizations have a large influence in the choice of people serving in government. An example would be the Federalist Society, a conservative organization unlike the politically neutral American Bar Association, in the selection of justices and judges. There are other organizations, corporations and individuals, usually very wealthy, who have a special influence in forming laws and policies.
In a summary, Whitehouse mentions that in the Supreme Court’s decisions, not only did Republican and big donors win every time, but that in more than half of these cases, the conservative justices even ran over one or more of supposedly conservative judicial principles: respect for precedent, judicial restraint, a proper aversion to appellate factfinding, and “originalism” and its siblings, “textualism” and “federalism.” The main point is that big donors were favored in every case.
Sen. Whitehouse has set an example of how important it is to follow the money. It uncovers those who are trying to influence governmental decisions for their special interests. We are all interested in governmental decisions, but those with large amounts of money should not have more influence than those without as much money, especially in the cause of “liberty and justice for all.” If people with more money have more influence, it is a direct challenge to our democracy based on equality of all before the law.
Rev. Robert L. Montgomery, Ph.D., lives in Black Mountain.
This article originally appeared on Asheville Citizen Times: Opinion: Money is the biggest danger to honest government
