Rein in Lobbyists and Politicians

[Carol Hanna <c1hanna@hawaii.rr.com>]

Greed, power, money, and corruption are the fingers that fit in the glove of politics. That has existed in every country around the world since the inception of politics. 

The idea of publicly funded campaigns to allow those who wish to run, but limited on money and sponsors, may have an opportunity. It is a viable alternative to taxpayers that might appreciate in having an opportunity to invest in a candidate other than those with huge war chests. I strongly believe in some form of publicly funded campaign contributions on a voluntary basis

The idea of lobbying, while it can be both detrimental and beneficial to the public's interest, I believe is the seat of corruption in politics. I would want to know that someone was lobbying on behalf and in my best interest even though I know lobbyists can accomplish what is contrary. Lobbying strategies, especially the mischievous variety, are always done behind closed doors. The legislators won't discuss them and the lobbyists maintain privacy. 

Last summer, Schering-Plough, the manufacturer of Claritin, an expensive allergy medication, sought an extension on its valuable patent. An anonymous senator asked the in-house lawyers to write-up legislation that would revamp the process for extending patents.  Senator Robert Torricelli, D-N. J., .had pushed for a similar deal last year for a drug company in his state but dropped after the press got wind of it and made a public disclosure. The Schering-Plough folks and the anonymous senator did not wish their names appearing before the public out of, I presume out of embarrassment. There is no substitute for disclosure. 

The soft money that showered from the special interest trees is beginning to dry up.  Business and other wealthy contributors are getting sick of being held up by politicians and feel they could spend that money more wisely, like lobbying and other more effective ways i.e. PAC's and fund-raisers. 

Chelle Pingree, D-Maine and Senate Majority Leader, had been befriended by the pharmaceutical industry over a period of years. She found it difficult to give up the campaign contributions. She says they took her out to dinner, made friends with her, invited her to parties and donated money. After she organized some trips to Canada for seniors to purchase prescriptions drugs the courtship ended. A Pfizer lobbyist complained about seeing her "attack our companies "and therefore could not continue supporting her. 
I admire Chelle because she was sensitive and responded in an appropriate manner. Her courage stands as a tribute to my idea of what our elected officials should represent - an advocate for the public they represent. Senator Pingree did the right thing.

I'm at a loss to have an answer on how to "clean up Dodge" by keeping politicians honest. However, as an independent thinker and voter, I know the qualities I look for in a candidate and they must earn my vote regardless of party affiliation. 

I would like to feel that I could contribute to a candidate that I really believed had my best interest at heart.  It would be important to me, as a voter, that my candidate understood issues, offered sensible, reasonable and practical solutions to problems. Equally important is an instant full disclosure of campaign funds (including open bank statements for verification) and a view of their voting history provided they are an incumbent or have served as an elected official in another capacity.  Having the latitude to publicly contribute and privately seems only fair and reasonable with the scope of democracy.