Cheaters, Thieves, and Scalawags

The basic idea of government isn’t very complicated: organize and operate local and national communities, dispenser justice where it is required and support where it is needed. Try to be fair, effective, and compassionate. How tough is that?

But corruption and waste infect our government from top to bottom. The tone was set by the Bush administration’s open partnership with and unwillingness to regulate big business, and while they are only the latest in a centuries-old line of cheaters, know-it-alls, and scalawags, corruption is still a drain on our economy and has a deep, negative impact on our national character. It may be true that it has always been thus, but it needn’t always be thus.

Accepting corruption as the natural state of affairs, average people have adopted a philosophy of greed and selfishness, embracing personal corruptions, large and small. Business is conducted like a poker game, the basic rule of play being deception rather than reliability. Legislators routinely favor their campaign contributors, on top of which, they have been allowed to regulate their own salaries. How weird is that?

We have become, with notable exceptions, a pampered nation of conspicuous consumers, anesthetized to the suffering of others, concerned only with personal luxury and security. We were a great nation but we have lost our way, wandering aimlessly in search of the original intent of our founders and the next Veterans Day sale at Home Depot.

We are, however, a creative, determined people and may yet be able to reinvent ourselves. A simple, three-step program would dramatically reduce corruption in government and increase our chances of survival. This is easier than conquering alcoholism, which, as you know, requires twelve steps. The first step is publicly funded elections (PFEs).

The single most identifiable source of governmental corruption isn’t flat-out bribery, it is the crippling influence of campaign contributors over elected officials. Why else would corporations give hundreds of millions of dollars, to both sides, but to gain unfair advantage for themselves? It would be naïve to think otherwise – it would be denial.

In a PFE, each qualified candidate would be allotted an equal sum of money, plus media time, for a one-month campaign. No other funding at all - corporate, private, or personal. Let’s give legislators more time to legislate and fewer reasons to be dishonest.

It isn’t likely that political parties will cheerfully give up their position as primary fundraisers - that will probably require ballot initiatives. But PFEs would create a level playing field for all candidates, and give legislators, unfettered by financial obligations, the opportunity to legislate in the interest of the majority. This first important step will heal a major sore on the political body.

Steps two and three, along with the secret formula for painlessly raising PFEs funds, will follow in the next few days.

Remember, one foot on either side.

1 XCZR