A few months ago, many beef-industry-reliant states got into
a tizzy over media reports about 'pink slime.' This is in fact a derogatory
name for a beef filler / by-product that's found in practically every package
of ground beef. (The beef industry prefers the name "lean finely
textured beef.")
Anyway, the governors of these states held a press
conference at a processing plant to complain about the way this filler was
being characterized. At this made-for-TV event, the mainstream media
reporter who gave the 'pink slime' a national spotlight asked Iowa's governor a
question - did his interest in this issue also stem from the fact the beef
processor was one of his biggest political donors?
Of course, the governor responded with righteous indignation
that someone would even think there was a connection. Many others,
including my own friends and acquaintances, agreed it was a cheap shot question
from a self-aggrandizing reporter.
Hold on, now. While this 'pink slime' deal was very
overblown and a bit offensive, that question was not. If politicians are
going to accept political donations, they are fair game to be criticized when
they appear to do favors for those donors, rightly or wrongly. It doesn't
matter if they actually happen to believe what they're saying, the appearance
of impropriety is there.
Of course, this is just a microcosm of the current state of
affairs in this country when it comes to money and politics. Thanks to
the Citizens United decision, money has never had a bigger influence in who
gets what in the USA, and politicians have never been more brazen about doing
favors for those who provide them with financial backing.
Senator John McCain, one of the few people who still can
pass as a moderate Republican and a long-time voice for campaign finance
reform, recently said about Citizens United, "There will be scandals associated
with the worst decision of the United States Supreme Court in the 21st
century.” Will be? It's been happening since the day the decision
was made.
Even before that decision, that system was still
broken. PACs/SuperPACs and lobbyists have always had too much influence,
mostly due to the access their money buys them. I used to work for a
large trade association, and it was no secret how this worked. When
raising money for the PAC, they openly stated that money was how the game
was played, and they needed to be a player.
Oh, but they didn't say that publicly. Instead they
had the gall to quote Thomas Jefferson, who once said, "We in America do
not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who
participate.” As if that meant Jefferson would support a PAC! (Note
- Thomas Jefferson also said, "The end of democracy will occur when
government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed
incorporations." Why didn't that trade association use that
quote? D-bags.)
What planet are elected officials on when they allow
themselves to accept money from people and especially from corporations, yet
don't think constituents or the media should question them about the
consequences of that relationship? It's legal bribery, with politicians who don't want to change it and an electorate
that feels powerless to change it.
