Morning Feature: Republic, Lost, Part I – The New Corruption
Will Rogers famously said “We have the best Congress money can buy.” It’s still true, but not the way he meant it. (More)
Republic, Lost, Part I – The New Corruption
This week Morning Feature explores Lawrence Lessig’s new book Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – And a Plan to Stop It. Today we consider how Lessig defines corruption as a “gift economy,” and why that definition matters in law. Tomorrow we’ll see how progressive ideas create opportunities for corruption, and how conservatives preserve those problems. Saturday we’ll look at Lessig’s proposals to fix corruption and restore our republic.
Lawrence Lessig is the Director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University, and a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He formerly taught at Stanford University and the University of Chicago, after clerking for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and for Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.
We’ve been here before, sort of.
Corruption is not a new problem in American politics. The Will Rogers quote in the introduction refers to a previous period, when bribery was commonplace. From Tammany Hall to Teapot Dome, the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the emergence of industrial and financial titans who routinely bought favors from government. Lessig describes the 1912 election as a watershed event, with presidential candidates ranging from pro-business Republican William Taft to socialist Eugene Debs.
Between those Right and Left extremes were two Progressives: Teddy Roosevelt running on his Bull Moose Party ticket, and Democrat Woodrow Wilson. The details of their progressive visions differed, but each saw our republic threatened by the corrupting influence of moneyed interests. As President Wilson wrote in 1913:
The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.
[...]
We have, not one or two, but many, fields of endeavor into which it is difficult, if not impossible, for the independent man to enter. We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world – no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.
A different kind of corruption
Yet while President Wilson’s and Will Rogers’ words might seem as accurate today, we have not (quite) returned to the corruption of the Gilded Age. Actual bribery cases make headlines – Randall “Duke” Cunningham, William Jefferson, Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay – but Lessig argues such behavior is extremely rare in our modern Congress. It is now so difficult to conceal and so politically juicy to prosecute that only the “very stupid,” in Lessig’s words, expressly trade votes for money.
Still, in a poll commissioned for the book, 81% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans answered “Yes” to the question: “Does money buy results in Congress?” And research suggests Americans are right. Studies by Princeton professors Larry Bartels and Martin Gilens showed a strong correlation between preferences of the wealthy, as expressed in polling data, and action by Congress. The same studies showed much lower correlations for median- and lower-income Americans.
So the wealthy are significantly more likely to see their favored ideas enacted as policy. Yet other research shows only a weak correlation between final roll call votes and campaign donors. I found a similar result on the health care bill in January 2010. And as Lessig concedes, proven cases of bribery are extremely rare. How, then, is Congress corrupt?
Dependency corruption
Lessig offers a subtle and important definition of corruption, what he calls dependency corruption. The cost of running for Congress has skyrocketed since the 1980s. Part of that is due to more sophisticated and expensive campaign techniques, part is due to the rising cost of media advertising, and part is due to rising competitiveness. From 1932 to 1992, the majority party in Congress shifted only twice: briefly to Republicans in the 1950s, then back to Democrats. Since then, the majority party has shifted three times: to Republicans in 1994, to Democrats in 2006, and back to Republicans (in the House) in 2010. According to Policy Almanac:
Aggregate costs of House and Senate campaigns increased eight-fold between 1976 and 2000, from $115.5 million to $1.007 billion, while the cost of living rose threefold. Campaign costs for average winning candidates, a useful measure of the real cost of seeking office, show an increase in the House from $87,000 in 1976 to $847,000 in 2000; a winning Senate race went from $609,000 in 1976 to $7.2 million in 2000.
And the costs keep rising. In 2010, according to Open Secrets, House and Senate campaigns raised over $1.8 billion. Members of Congress now spend 25-50% of their working hours soliciting donors. And, of course, they know who their donors are. They also know the lobbyists who round up those donors.
The gift economy
Yet as Lessig notes, this isn’t quite bribery. Lobbyists don’t say “I’ll round up $25,000 for your campaign if you vote my clients’ interest on that bill.” Members of Congress don’t say “I’ll vote for your subsidy or tax break if you give me $5000.” That is bribery, an explicit quid pro quo. That would be a transactional economy: government-as-vending machine, where put in your money, push the button, and Congress puts out the law you want.
Instead, Lessig argues, Congress has evolved a gift economy. Exchanges of gifts are not explicit promises of reciprocity. If a spouse or partner says “I brought you flowers to show you how much I appreciate what you do around the house,” there is neither an explicit contract nor an implicit request that the recipient will continue to do that housework. Yet the appreciation does make it more likely the recipient will continue to do the housework. At some point, the other spouse may respond with “I made you a special dinner, to show you how much I appreciate you taking care of the kids on weekends.”
So it is with Congress. A donor or lobbyist offers a gift without explicit strings attached. But in a day or a week, there’s another conversation: expressing appreciation for the member’s past consideration on this or that legislation. Or conversely, the member sponsors or moves along a bill, and a day or a week later calls the lobbyist or donors to say “I looked out for your interests on that issue.” And, a few days or weeks later, “Would you put together a fundraiser for me?”
Add the facts that most members of Congress are wealthy, and humans’ natural tendency to empathize more with others like themselves, and it’s easy to see how “one man, one vote” becomes “some voters are more equal than others.” Specifically, wealthy voters – especially major donors – are “more equal” than the rest of us.
Tomorrow we’ll explore how that plays out in shaping the political agenda, and how policy debates offer opportunities for exchanging favors.
+++++
Happy Thursday!
I’m gonna stick with Will Rogers…..!
What Will Rogers said is still true, but in a very different way than when Rogers said it. When he said that, outright bribery was common. We had government-as-vending-machine, with explicit cash-for-votes transactions. That rarely happens today … but there are other ways money can influence political behavior. And it does.
Good morning! ::hugggggs::
This is an extremely disturbing piece. Dependency corruption has to be very hard to control, and it’s certainly not illegal. I can easily see how it works. The only way to combat it would be by voting against those who are not serving our common interests, but if Americans have begun to feel hopeless that their voices will be heard, we’re in a serious trouble. They won’t vote because it makes no difference, to their way of thinking.
And then when it gets too bad to stand anymore, what’s the solution? I shudder to think.
Agreed…… What is missing is the explicit part. That we have, “….the best Congress that money can buy,” has been proven over and over…. They are substantially more subtle nowadays……. And we ARE in serious trouble, IMO.
Various Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed these so-called Voter ID laws that serve only to limit minority voting, a modern-day poll tax by any other name. Add in the yet-to-come effects of Citizens United in last-minute ad buys, push polls, and anonymous smears, we are looking at a take over by the R’s. IMO, of course.
Thank you for this important insight, winterbanyan:
Lessig explores this at length, though I didn’t have space to address it in today’s essay. There are two distinct issues here: (1) Is Congress corrupt? and, (2) Do voters reasonably believe Congress is corrupt?
I focused mostly on the first issue in my essay, but Lessig argues the second issue is equally as important. Again, in a poll commissioned for the book, voters were asked “Does money buy results in Congress?” And 75% of the respondents – 81% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans – answered “Yes.”
In a June 2011 Gallup Poll, Congress ranked last in public confidence, in a list of 16 institutions. Only 12% of Americans expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in Congress, while 48% expressed “very little” or “none.” Other polls over the past few years show similar results.
Indeed only the military (78%), small business (64%), and the police (56%) have the confidence of a majority of Americans, with organized religion with a near-majority at 48%. The medical system, the Supreme Court, the presidency, and public schools all scored in the 30s. Newspapers and television news scored in the high 20s. Banks, organized labor, and big business scored around 20%.
And Congress … just 12%.
Lessig argues this shows that Congress is “politically bankrupt,” and that it explains why so many Americans are so ignorant about basic civics. A November 2010 Pew Poll found that only 46% of Americans knew the GOP would control the House after the election. In March of this year, Newsweek gave 1000 Americans the U.S. citizenship test: 38% failed, and 44% could not identify the Bill of Rights.
“We are ignorant,” Lessig writes, “but we are not stupid.” Most Americans realize they have very little influence in our current government, so they ignore it and focus on other aspects of their lives.
Exit polls show wealthy Americans vote at far higher rates than median-income Americans, and low-income Americans vote at the lowest rates of all. Some argue this explains the findings of professors Bartels and Gilens that I cited in the essay. Others argue argue the converse: fewer median- and low-income Americans vote because they know Congress ignores them.
Which is the chicken and which is the egg? It’s hard to say, but the widespread support for the Occupy movement is evidence of Americans’ crisis of confidence in our government.
Good morning! ::hugggggs::
When you look at those statistics, you get a real idea of the size of the problem we face. People have lost confidence in their government. The question is now: how will they respond to that loss of confidence?
If we let matters go as they are now, things are going to get worse. How much worse remains to be seen, but history shows time and again that people have a breaking point when they lose hope.
The Arab Spring was born out of the feeling that there was only one way to achieve change. Some of it grew quite violent. Is that what we’re looking at?
We’ll discuss possible responses on Saturday. Lessig argues for peaceful strategies to reclaim our republic, but he admits that none of his strategies is likely to work. Still, he says, we can’t simply give up … or our children and grandchildren will have only a hollow shell of the “America” we once believed in.
Good morning! ::hugggggs::
As a co-worker once wryly said, “This has never worked before, but let’s try it again!”
I take some comfort in the “We’ve been here before, sort of” line. If we have undone the rules of absolute privilege and oligarchy before we can do it again.
We have a “consumer driven economy” or so they say. I am waiting for the Boards and Senior Management of the consumer products companies to wake up and realize that without consumers their business models do not work. The policies that decimate the middle class will ultimately hurt those businesses. The policies that provide avenues for joining the middle class are in the self interest of any company that requires consumers. What good is another tax cut if your business depends on the well being of your customers and you are screwing them for short term gain and thereby guaranteeing yourself a shrinking market? Does short term greed trump the sustainability of your business?
This is a version of “we’re all in this together” intended to wake up the selfish and help them see what’s in it for them.
Thanks for the hopeful thought, addisnana. You’re right, we’ve been here before regardless of whether the details are the same.
Right now, and for the last 30 years, short-term profits that improve stock prices has been the goal of every major corporation.
Yet the word does get through. When Americans cut back their driving by huge amounts in response to the high prices of gas a couple of years back, those prices came tumbling down.
It won’t be simply “cutting back” the way this economy is. People are doing without all sorts of things entirely now, and that’s got to be making an economy-wide dent.
The problem, as I see it, is that the very wealthy can afford to wait another 14 months in hopes of taking total control of the government.
The OWS movement is the first big sign that the masses are getting restless under these economic policies, but I don’t think the big money is scared enough yet.
I agree that some business leaders are realizing that undermining median- and lower-income Americans is ultimately bad for business, as Warren Buffett famously argued back in August. But Lessig has discussed campaign finance reform hundreds of times with various groups over the past few years, including several forums with business leaders. Many agree that the current system is broken, yet still balk at reforms that would undermine their influence. As one wealthy donor told him, “I like knowing I can get a meeting with a member of Congress anytime I ask.”
Lessig argues this isn’t exactly a thirst for power. Instead, based on his conversations, Lessig says this “I deserve more influence” attitude reflects a belief that their financial success makes their opinions more important … even when their opinions have nothing to do with their professions. They see their ideas as more worthy because they “pay more taxes,” “have more skin in the game,” or “proved themselves in business.” He finds the same attitudes among wealthy donors in both parties.
Once you have influence, no matter how or why you acquired it, it’s all too easy to believe you deserve it.
Good morning! ::hugggggs::
Myself, I’ve thought for years that as soon as we have too many people stacking boxes at Wal-Mart for barely minimum wage and no benefits, that we’ll reach a tipping point where the economy stalls semi-permanently because not many will be able to afford the SUV’s and $300,000 homes. I think we’re in it!
The Dems in Congress couldn’t even de-incentivize the off-shoring of jobs. The R’s prevented it. We are hosed!
IMO…..
The problem would be easier to solve if only Republicans played the influence game, Gardener. As we saw in our discussion of Winner-Take-All Politics, the more accurate (and less hopeful) statement is that “Republicans wear black hats and Democrats wear grey hats.” That is, on any given issue, you’ll usually find a handful of Democrats who are swayed toward wealthy interests … and with almost all Republicans leaning that way almost all the time, it takes only a handful of Democrats to tip the balance.
Good morning! ::hugggggs::
Yeah, I’ve mentally adopted that hat analogy. I think it hits the nail on the head, however sad that may be….