Money’s role in politics subtle, real
MANCHESTER, N.H. — The role of money in politics is neither as crude as Bernie Sanders suggests, nor as benign — at least when it comes to herself — as Hillary Clinton would have you think.
Sanders presents a mechanistic view of the impact of campaign donors: contributions in, results out. Thus, in Sanders’ view, Hillary Clinton, and the money she scoops up, offers a disturbing illustration of a larger problem.
“What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one’s life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests,” Sanders said in Thursday’s debate.
“To my mind, if we do not get a handle on money in politics and the degree to which big money controls the political process in this country, nobody is going to bring about the changes that [are] needed in this country for the middle class and working families.”
Clinton bristled at what she called his “artful smear.” Sanders’ “attack,” she said, “comes down to ... anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that. ... You will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received.”
I’ve written about money and politics for years now, and I would suggest: Both candidates have it wrong.
Campaign contributions don’t have the automatic, all-but-guaranteed results of Sanders’ depiction. People write checks for many reasons beyond economic selfinterest, even people who work for Goldman Sachs, and even big checks.
The process operates in a more subtle way, which is not to say it is an attractive one or healthy for democracy.
Campaign checks grease the way for access; they help focus the recipient’s mind on the donor’s cause. And sometimes, sure, they have the desired result.
But other forces — including public opinion and ideological inclinations — play a role in the eventual outcome. If the Koch brothers didn’t exist, conservative Republicans would still question the wisdom of emission regulations they view as damaging to economic growth. The power of the National Rifle Association comes not from the group’s campaign spending but from its capacity to mobilize supporters.
At the same time, Clinton’s air of huffy injury — how dare you criticize all the cash I’ve collected because you can’t show any direct impact on the outcome? — mischaracterizes the nature of the monetary transaction and airbrushes the avidity with which both Clintons have stroked big givers for decades.
Of course contributions have some influence — if not on the ultimate result — on who obtains a meeting to make sure their concerns are aired, on who gets hired for a key administration job.
Indeed, if this cash didn’t matter, there would be no reason for Clinton to call so passionately for overturning the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, which opened the door to the era of the super PAC, with its unlimited donations from corporations and wealthy individuals.
An all-but-forgotten episode from her husband’s time in office offers an ugly real-world illustration of what money can buy, and the Clintons’ role in peddling cash for favors. It involves a California businessman, Johnny Chung, who, back when big “soft money” checks could flow straight to parties, gave $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee.
Chung, who eventually pleaded guilty to tax evasion and election law violations, used the donations to arrange visits to the White House, at least 49 times in two years. As a Senate investigation found, “Chung was granted extraordinary access to the White House, and especially the first lady’s office.”
Although a National Security Council staffer considered Chung a “hustler,” Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Maggie Williams, accepted his $50,000 check in her White House office — immediately after Chung brought a delegation of Chinese clients for lunch at the White House mess, a tour of the White House and a photo with Hillary Clinton in the Map Room.
This welcoming embrace did not simply reflect the first lady’s raising money for the team; as the Senate report relates, a Hillary Clinton aide told Chung that “the first lady had some debts with the DNC” to pay for holiday parties.
“I see the White House is like a subway,” Chung told the Los Angeles Times in 1997. “You have to put in coins to open the gates.’’ It’s fair to recall: Hillary Clinton stood on the other side of the turnstile.