Representative Tom Delay's response to being indicted on campaign financing charges was to accuse the prosecutor and the presiding judge of political bias. Currently, he's enjoying a brief respite until a separate hearing determines whether or not the judge may hear the case.
I have no opinion as to whether Mr. DeLay is guilty or not. I do believe, however, that this country's campaign financing laws have grown so numerous, so minute and so complex as to recall the tart comment of an English legal scholar on the late Robinson-Patman Act: "No piece of legislation better illustrates the folly of attempting to prohibit sin in detail."
The reformers are always trying to remove "the corrupting influence of money" from politics. They might just as well try to remove the corrupting influence of politics from politics.
Legislate all you want, donors will always find a way around restrictions on campaign contributions, and politicians -- regardless of party -- will always facilitate the process by operating on the fringes of the law.
Humorist Will Rogers (1879-1935) anticipated the DeLay case by over three-quarters of a century: "Democrats are having a lot of fun exposing the Republican campaign corruptions, but they would have a lot more fun if they knew where they could lay their hands on some of it themselves for next November."
Comments (2)
I expect to hear arguments similar to DeLay's if Patrick Fitzgerald gets indictments out of a Washington, D.C., grand jury -- 75% of whom are African-American. Had a white grand jury heard this testimony....
But I agree with your point about money in politics. A good reason for public financing of campaigns, I say.
Posted by Dan Danbom | October 26, 2005 12:07 PM
Posted on October 26, 2005 12:07
Dan -- Public financing of campaigns has its drawbacks, too. It may sound fair to give both candidates the same amount of money, but if one candidate is an incumbant, that candidate has an advantage. Look, for example, at the "polls" and "Washington reports" that members of Congress can send out to their constituents at public expense through the franking privilege. Or the advantage that accrues to them from securing federal spending in their districts through pork-barrel projects. Above all, consider gerrymandering, and the fact that most members of Congress today represent "safe" districts. These advantages can only be overcome by the challenger spending more money. Even a bona-fide liberal like Sen. Gene MacCarthy opposed public financing of political campaigns. He once quipped that "the American Revolution was not financed with matching grants from the British Crown." Thanks for posting. It's nice to know I really do have readers. -- Hal
Posted by Hal Gordon | October 27, 2005 9:07 AM
Posted on October 27, 2005 09:07