Turning politics outside in

Money still corrupts politics but maybe not in the way we think.

Lucy Nicholson/Reuters/File
Donald Trump and Jeb Bush talk simultaneously during a Republican presidential debate in September 2015.

The unforeseen success of Donald Trump is the story of the 2016 presidential campaign so far. That Bernie Sanders is making a credible bid for the Democratic nomination might be the No. 2 surprise.

Or is their success just half of the story? The saga also includes the unexpected collapse of the campaign of Jeb Bush, whose immediate family includes two ex-presidents, and the struggles of Hillary Clinton, who has been part of the national political scene for decades, to shake off Senator Sanders and his appeal to young and disaffected people.

Mr. Bush and Mrs. Clinton have been among the most successful campaign fundraisers. Their large war chests were amassed to scare off potential rivals.

But with the demise of Bush’s campaign, questions are being raised about why his pot of gold didn’t translate into more votes. Did his campaign managers badly misspend many tens of millions of dollars? Or was he such a weak candidate, as well as a political insider out of step with the mood of voters in 2016, that no amount of money could make him electable?

Mr. Trump, a billionaire, seems to be taking special pleasure in pointing out that his campaign is self-funded and that, if elected, he’ll not be beholden to hidden special interests. If Americans are content to confine their choices for president to billionaires, he has made a good point.

Bush's failure -- he dropped out of the Republican primary race Feb. 20 -- shouldn’t be seen as an encouraging sign that money doesn’t drive American politics. For one thing presidential races are a breed of their own; they generate wide public and news media interest that doesn’t rely entirely on campaign advertising -- as Trump has skillfully shown with his ability to attract free publicity for his campaign.

While it’s troubling to think that voters cast ballots based on what they see and hear from a candidate’s paid political advertising, that’s not the greatest danger presented by money in politics.

“I never thought money was a problem because it corrupts the voters,” points out Harvard law professor and political activist Lawrence Lessig. “I thought money was a problem because of how fundraising corrupts candidates.”

Members of Congress spend 30 to 70 percent of their time fundraising, he says. “So whether or not money can buy you votes, raising money in a completely humiliating way, it turns you into a sycophant, or somebody who isn’t a leader.”

Long hours of fundraising also take away from time an officeholder could be spending working on behalf of constituents.

As Mr. Lessig puts it, the one thing that “unites Bernie and Donald Trump is that they are appealing to people who are so tired of the insider politician, and are willing to accept the warts of both candidates, if they could get somebody who would be credible about trying to change the system.”

In the aftermath of campaign 2016 that desire for change may extend to the way money is spent in political campaigning. Many members of both parties may be ready to rethink how campaigns are financed and look for a better way. Before dropping out Bush himself suggested that more transparency in revealing the identity of donors could be a start.

Campaign finance reform may be just one result of a year when political outsiders are turning politics inside out.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.