Steven Hill (Mother Jones): How Important Is the Quid Pro Quo?

[Jack Rabbit]

From Mother Jones
Dated Thursday April 20

How Important Is the Quid Pro Quo?
The problem of private money influencing politics goes much, much deeper than Jack Abramoff.
By Steven Hill

With crooked lobbyist Jack Abramoff having been sentenced to six years in prison for fraud, it's a good time to step back and look more deeply at the role of money in politics. Evidence suggests that the Jack Abramoffs of the world are a distraction from the real problem.

Certainly the Abramoff scandal has focused badly-needed attention on instances of quid pro quo between politicians and donors—the granting of legislative favors in return for big donations. But a key question has not been asked: To what degree does the source of a politicians' money actually affect overall policy, especially on major issues.

To understand the role that private money plays in our elections, it's important to understand what I call the "pyramid of money." Party leaders such as Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi—as well as the vast majority of incumbents from both parties—don't need to spend very much on their reelections, since they represent districts that are one-party strongholds . . . .

Nevertheless, party leaders and incumbents in safe seats continue to raise huge amounts of money, ostensibly for their own reelections. Why? Not because they're in danger of losing their own races, but so that they can funnel the money into party-building activities—especially financing colleagues running in the small number of hotly-contested races each year. This in turn buys them influence among their peers, along with appointments to powerful committee leadership positions. Each party's Big Money Kings and Queens sit at the top of the Pyramid, directing the flow of money to the tight races, hoping to win a majority of seats for their team.

Read more.