Washington is now the shame of the free
world
The Sydney Morning Herald (AU)
An American stench that should not choke us
By Bruce C. Wolpe
January 7, 2006
IT IS rocking Washington like no other scandal in Congress since the 1920s.
It could topple the Republican control of the Capitol in mid-term elections in
November, crippling George Bush and his ambition of cementing a Republican
majority in Washington for the next two decades.
Added to a simmering brew of the continuing investigation of White House
staff for leaking a CIA operative's name, the coming investigation of the
mammoth domestic spying operation after September 11, 2001, and the upcoming
trial of the former Republican House leader for illegal campaign contributions,
we have an orgy for cable TV and bloggers.
While Bush will tell Americans at the end of this month that the State of
the Union has never been stronger, and try to enlist their support for his
agenda, what will be on the minds of the members of Congress in the chamber is
who will be indicted next, and to whom power will shift.
The bad news is this is terribly corrosive of the institutions of democracy
in Washington. There will be hell to pay. The good news is, for all the
concerns about lobbying and money in Australia, what we are seeing in
Washington is most unlikely to happen here. Australia's system is cleaner and
more transparent and hopefully it will stay that way.
Last May, Jack Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to fraud, bribery and tax
charges, told The New York Times: "I've been shocked at how I have been
portrayed in the media. If I read the articles about me, and I didn't know me,
I would think I was satan."
But there is no sympathy for the devil because Abramoff embodies everything
that has gone wrong in Washington over the past 15 years as lobbying has
increasingly been transformed from the right to petition the government to the
institutionalised opportunity to buy influence from the government.
This has been building for years. The whispers have been insistent. It has
become an urban myth that you will not see certain members of Congress unless a
campaign contribution has been received. You will see his staff, you can make
your case, but you will not see the man himself.
Interest groups have been told by the Republican congressional leadership
there will be retaliation, in terms of what they will not get from Congress, if
they hire known Democrats as lobbyists.
If you represented a major corporation and did not make significant
political contributions, you had the clout of a minor corporation.
What Abramoff did was crystallise the worst essence of all these trends into
one revolting offence: official acts were done for money. The context of
Abramoff's indictment is the perception that nothing can get done in Washington
unless money is involved. This is what stinks, and is now the shame of the
capital of the free world.
This is also the point of departure between Washington and Canberra. While
cynicism about Australian politics will always be rife (in itself a check on
the system), there are several structural differences that keep the functioning
of democracy here relatively healthy.
First, parties in Australia are stronger. In the US, each of the 535 people
who occupy their seats in Congress run on their own, raise their own money,
develop their own positions, and are responsible to no one but themselves and
their networks. This anarchic system feeds an insatiable hunger for money, and
makes each politician an addicted scavenger for funds, in thrall to the
suppliers.
Here, it is the parties that select and endorse the candidates, that raise
and distribute the lion's share of the funds, develop the platforms and
policies, and enforce discipline. Strong parties have always led to healthier
democracies.
Second, compulsory voting reduces the need for money in political campaigns.
In the US, with voluntary voting, unlimited funds are required to push your
voters to the polls. Like nuclear war, you can never have a sufficiently large
arsenal of weapons. Here, with universal turnout assured, campaign spending is
more restrained. The US economy is 15 times larger than Australia's but its
campaign expenditures are 40 times greater. Mandatory voting reduces the weight
of political contributors on the system as a whole.
Third, sunshine is the best disinfectant. In the US no one quite knows where
Moveon.org (which goes after Bush) or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (which
demolished John Kerry) get their funds. But these groups are formed to get
around campaign finance rules, particularly those limiting funds from
corporations. Here, as corporate contributions are legal, parties and
recipients have to report their receipt, and do so cleanly. Unless taxpayers
want to assume the burden of complete public funding of political campaigns,
there is nothing wrong with contributions from private sources, including
business and labour, as long as it is all disclosed in a timely fashion so
voters can take into account who is bankrolling the names on the ballot when
they vote. Maintenance of a rigorous and timely disclosure regime is
critical.
For nearly two decades, there has been a growing convergence of the American
and Australian political cultures, from a premium on telegenic candidates to
the 24-hour-a-day news cycle to attack ads to push polling. But while
Australia's political system is cleaner, and will require vigilance to keep it
that way, the stench that is choking Washington won't erupt here.
Bruce C. Wolpe was a US congressional aide and Washington lobbyist, and is
author of Lobbying Congress: How the System Works (Congressional Quarterly
Books). He is director, corporate affairs, for Fairfax, publisher of The Sydney
Morning Herald.
|