OPINION: No real change until we tackle corrupt system

But a national politician who takes money in exchange for favors is just doing his job. In fact, if he refuses to play the game of sanctioned bribery, then those with money in hand will pay big bucks to someone else in hopes of getting the legislator with a conscience removed from office.

For all the bickering we have between Republicans and Democrats, we too often miss the bigger picture, which is this: the political system is fundamentally corrupt. And without real campaign finance reform, and without measures to rein in corrupting influences on legislators of both parties, we will never see real change in Washington.

Remember that our courts have ruled that money equals speech. Therefore, limits on political contributions are viewed as limiting free speech. The trouble is, when money equals speech, it becomes the only language.

And while we will always fight about what led to the financial mess we’re in, I will always believe it was the corrupting influence of money on our politicians that led us into a fiscal sinkhole.

What do I mean? Well, consider that our elders lived through the Great Depression and they wanted their grandchildren to avoid similar calamities in the future. So, they set certain rules in place to protect us from disaster. For instance, the post-Depression Congress banned the mixing of the “commercial” and “investment” banking industries that occurred in the 1920s. Essentially, they didn’t want banks that held most people’s money to take risky gambles with that money. But by the 1990s, these old fears seemed dated. We couldn’t have another Great Depression. And we had super-smart folks on Wall Street who assured us that they were bright enough to keep us safe while they raked in more cash. They wanted more freedom to make a fortune. Naturally, they had plenty of money to buy influence in Washington. And a Republican-led Congress put a bill before a Democratic president to give Wall Street what it wanted, a stripping of rules our elders put in place to protect us. It was a bi-partisan gamble with our future.

Then came the boom times. The complicated financial instruments, such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations, were the new rage. The easy credit was like coal for the fire. The government wanted it. The financial industry wanted it. The potential homeowners wanted it. There was greed at all levels. But it was all built on financial lies, the idea that there would be no day of reckoning for loans that couldn’t be paid back. And when it all went wrong, who did the politicians protect? Well, those with money, those who could contribute to them. I believe the bank bailout was necessary. Without it, millions of people could have seen their accounts wiped out, a catastrophe far greater than what we had. Still, I recognize the game for what it is: a protecting of interests. You move from yourself outward. If you’re a politician, the inner circle is those who can help you financially.

Naturally, the elimination of our grandfathers’ rules made for some fun times indeed, but I wonder: Is it just a coincidence that when we dismissed wisdom gained through hard experience, we faced our own hard experience?

Anyway, I believe such troubles stem from a systemic problem in our political system. So, here’s my pipe-dream political reform. Why not make all elected posts one term, but make terms longer, such as 10 years for a House seat? With long terms, legislators can still have valuable experience, but they will not spend any of that time campaigning for their re-election. Campaign contributions are thus off the table for those in office. Any money outside of the decent salary for that politician could be what it needs to be: an illegal bribe.

With fewer elections necessary, we could have elections financed through the government, with funds approved for three candidates for each election: a Republican, a Democrat and a third-party candidate. With an outside influence mandated in the system, the two-party monopoly would be busted. Have elections a full year before any person takes a seat, and require that person to go to school to learn about governance during that year.

Obviously, there are real problems with these proposals. For instance, how do you determine who gets on the general election ticket? What about campaign contributions during this phase? I don’t mean this as some blueprint for reform. But I think the central ideas are sound: 1.) Remove all thoughts of re-election from the heads of our legislators. 2.) Introduce something that mandates third-party inclusion in the system. 3.) Require training for each position a full year ahead of taking office.

Let’s turn politics more toward civic service than self service.

We will never make politics pure. But we can make it better. I wish liberals and Tea Partiers would unite on this. I think people across the spectrum are fed up with the corrupting influence of money on our leaders. I think we can demand change. It’s in our long-term interest to try.

In the meantime, I guess we’ll focus on whether an Auburn football player was bought off. It’s much easier than dealing with a system of governance that is so entrenched in the payoff.

Zach Mitcham is editor of The Madison County Journal.