Congress for sale

Reuters: The political action committees of six Wall Street banks spent the first quarter of 2010 giving handsome donations to Republicans and Democrats who are critical to passing legislation that could determine the future of the U.S. financial sector.

The banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs -- gave about $106,000 to 12 members of the Senate and House of Representatives who sit either in leadership positions or on the committees that forged the measures.

The sum is 40 percent of the $272,000 that the same institutions donated overall to political campaigns and committees between January and March.

But it is only a tiny fraction of the more than $30 million that has flowed into campaign coffers from the PACs and employees of banks, securities firms and finance companies since the 2010 election cycle began on January 1, 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the non-partisan watchdog that tracks the role of money in U.S. politics.

Wall Street lobbyists this year have hosted fundraising events for at least 10 senators who sit on the banking and agriculture committees, which have advanced separate pieces of financial regulatory legislation, according to the Sunlight Foundation, another money in politics watchdog.

Here's a common sense suggestion: If it can't vote in an election it can't give money to a candidate.  No exceptions!

This might seem a bit radical, but think about it just a bit. 

According to a recent Supreme Court decision, money is speech.  It's not, but that's a separate issue.  Further, under existing election laws, anyone, anywhere, including non-US citizens and foreign companies, can contribute to an election.  The inevitable result is that elections are all about who has the most money and can run the smoothest campaign, read distort the truth is the way most enticing to voters.  Wall Street is not the only offender to be sure, just the one in today's news.  The net effect is little more than selling of elected offices.

Common sense suggests that the underlying principal of a representative democracy is that elected officials represent the people that can vote for them.  But with money coming from business (they can't vote) and elections reduced to who can raise the most money the election process is anything but representative.  Our elected officials don't represent the people that could vote for them.  They represent the people and companies that helped them get elected! 

There is no real surprise then that a Congress bought and paid for by Wall Street undid the banking protections in the name of 'financial reform' and 'making banks more competitive.'  The entirely foreseeable and inevitable result was a financial crisis and financial collapse only averted by taxpayers spending several trillion dollars.

Under a common sense arrangement that limits campaign contributions to those who can vote in an election our representatives wouldn't be beholding to Wall Street or other interests.  They would, arguably, be more inclined to represent the interest of there constituents.  They might now be inclined to restore some of the financial regulations they undid at the behest of Wall Street and big banks.  They might prevent another trillion dollar financial collapse.

But hey, that's just common sense.