|
|
| |
| Sat, Aug. 30, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
If there's no sin, don't repent Thursday, Jan 12, 2006 By John Brummett You're running as a Democrat for the U.S. Senate in the South. Your biggest test is whether you can prove viability by raising large sums of money to compete with the natural financial advantages of corporate-friendly Republicans. You retain consultants who know the usual sources of political money, meaning people who typically invest in big-time Washington races in exchange for access and, they hope, influence. Often they're simply covering themselves with all possible winners. Usually these people work in big firms with more than enough employees and clients to funnel money in both partisan directions without any individual's looking blatantly contradictory or mercenary. Thousands upon thousands pour in. You know only a fraction of the people whose names show up on your financial report, which, truth be told, you don't have time to read. Actually, at the behest of the consultants who call it essential, you spend several days making personal calls to seek donations. You don't even know all the people you call. You merely follow a list of names that your consultant hands you. He reminds you that a good politician needs to be able to chat up strangers. It's distasteful. But you roll up your pants leg and get to it. There's a commercial to cut, time to buy, a poll to commission, strength to show. Pundits behold your bank balance and declare you a credible contender, even a front-runner. After that, all you have to do is convince independent, conservative-minded white rural voters that you go to church and like to hunt. Then one day a powerful lobbyist named Jack Abramoff who is cozy with the Republican leadership gets in big trouble for ripping off clients. He winds up turning state's evidence. Washington gets nervous, especially the GOP part. It turns out that some people who formerly worked with him in a lobbying firm employing 1,500 people gave you money in that big campaign. It seems that one of your contributions came in the name of an Indian casino he formerly represented. We're talking $3,000 to $5,000 in campaign accounts exceeding $5 million. What do you do? Arkansas' Democratic senators react differently. Blanche Lincoln is keeping her money. Mark Pryor is sending his back. There's more logic, and, in a way, more integrity, in Lincoln's way. She says there's no taint whatsoever to money she got from people only happening to have worked under the same roof in a massive firm with this one sleazy fellow, who, incidentally, reserved all his personal associations for Republicans. She says she doesn't intend to besmirch them or herself. Pryor says that since we must begin anew a debate about meaningful campaign finance reform, and because he sits on the ethics committee that might someday consider charges against colleagues, he finds it advisable in the interest of avoiding even an appearance of impropriety to send back $3,800 he got from a couple of people who once worked in same firm with the fellow. Lincoln is right, for two reasons. One is that sending the money back implies or at least hints at some sort of contract in its taking. If no quid pro quo was made or implied, a refund is a non sequitur. The second is that Pryor admits his return of the money is not based on any sound basis, but on political window dressing. Our political windows are overdressed already. If you've done nothing wrong, you should take down the dressing and leave the windows wide open. ------- John Brummett is a columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com; his telephone number is (501) 374-0699. |
