published Thursday, August 26th, 2010

The battle over spending

Politicians are rarely inclined to support campaign reform measures that would come between them and their biggest donors, or open the door for more civic-minded opponents who would run against them. So it’s no surprise that Sen. Bob Corker, who will visit this paper today to discuss the need to ratchet down federal debt, will also be panned at a noon rally downtown for refusing sign on as a supporter of the proposed Fair Elections Now Act.

The irony, of course, is that there is a strong, direct connection between campaign reform and’s goals, on the one side, and debt reduction on the other.

Corker’s espoused goals — federal debt reduction and more rational federal spending — can’t occur if senators and congressmen are effectively on the payrolls of lobbyists and corporations that thrive on greedy legislative returns for their campaign contributions in the form of federal spending, tax breaks or the freedom to gouge consumers. That symbiotic paradigm won’t change unless Congress approves campaign reform and lobbying restrictions —’s goals — that would radically alter the current model of campaign fund-raising, election spending and the close nexus of both with lobbyists.

Indeed, the cliché that money is the milk of politics is readily apparent to anyone who bothers to look at the correlation between big campaign contributors, deep-pocket lobbyists’ spending and the legislation that Congress ultimately passes or defeats. The old rule about following the money almost unerringly predicts precisely how members of both chambers of Congress will vote on any given issue.

That relationship used to be opaque. Nowadays, readers need only search the database of civic-minded outfits like the Center for Responsive Politics, whose website at offers a wealth of information on the sources of money for every member of Congress. For example, click on to view Corker’s campaign receipts, donors and spending since 1989. Then go from there to explore the world of a Congress indentured to big industries, corporations and rich vested interest groups. Another site ( offers direct comparisons of votes following campaign money on the issue of controlling costs on soaring prescription drug prices.

The site offers links and breakdowns of the source of Corker’s $22,858,408 in campaign receipts since 1989 — most of which were for his Senate race in 2008. The vital information the site discloses about the industries, PACS, donors and geography of his campaign funding make it abundantly clear, as most observers would suspect, that campaigns are not built on small donations from rank-and-file supporters who send him $5 or $50. Rather, they rely chiefly on the deep-pocket giving of industries, business PACs and individuals that have a vested interest in having a friend in the Senate to vote for legislation they want, or against bills they oppose.

The Fair Elections Now Act would attempt to change that model by rewarding candidates who base their campaigns on donations by small donors. The bill sets out a credible candidate petition threshold minimums and a public funding formula for candidates that is tied proportionally to the varying populations of states and political districts. proposes two other worthy goals for candidates willing to sign their pledge for reform. One calls for support of legislation to close the revolving door that gives former members of Congress jobs in the industries they once helped regulate, and vice versa. The other seeks legislation to reverse or overturn the recent, radical Supreme Court ruling which gave corporations the same First Amendment rights as actual citizens to spend as much as they want to influence the outcome of an election. The flow of corporate money into the November election is already proving how that giveaway of citizen control over campaigns will corrupt our republic if not fixed.

That Sen. Corker would not sign’s sensible pledge to rein in the corrupting rule of rich campaign donors, lobbyists and corporate campaign spending speaks volumes about the typical politician’s acceptance of the out-of-control status quo. It certainly undermines the senator’s presumed seriousness about controlling federal spending.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
carlB said...

Opinion » Times Thursday, Aug. 26, 2010 The battle over spending

Reply: Thanks for the opinion. Looks as if you are including several types of spending in your opinion.
Campaign funding and donations took on a new perspective with the ruling that a corporation is considered the same as an individual. The lobbyist money influence spending is certainly not narrowed down to any one "Party."
What about the campaign spending of a "person" who has gotten "rich" off the backs of the people or the Government, spending their own money to influence the election out come? The "R" candidicate running for the Governor of Florida is a good example. McCain in Arizona is another person who does not want to lose, pumping millions of dollars into his campaign fund. The spending of all of the money in McCain's case, should not have been necessary. Also in his and in other cases, what is there left to know about the candidicate? The voters should already know if they are going to vote for a person or not, who has already been elected in the same office for "ages"? What is the purpose of spending more money and what does it indicate or say about how the voters can be influenced?

What about Senator Corker's sudden position against the Government's deficit spending since President Obama has been in office and the way the Republicans have acted against Obama's policies in his stabalizing the 2007 deep recession. For the people who are "denying" what the condition this country was in during the last administration and all of the unfinished crisis issues "passed over" to this administration, should broaden their thinking of whither they want the country to get out of the deep recession without getting into another "Great Depression.? If the voters want the Nation to be in another "Great Depression" then vote the Republicans who allowed the deep recession to occur, under their policies.

We already know that Senator Corker does not mind cutting American workers' wages and benefits, with the "unfair" trade policies, forcing the loss of US jobs, but He, along with the others in the Congress are still getting pay raises, which help drive up the total National Debt.

August 26, 2010 at 11:20 a.m.
acerigger said...

well said carl!

August 27, 2010 at 9:11 p.m.
carlB said...

acerigger | On: August 27, 2010 at 9:11 p.m


Thanks, It's a tough world out here for many people and many of them appear to keep voting the same party back in office after being "scammed" for eight years before this administration. Not any Party is perfect, but it is hard to understand who would want to put the last party back in power.

August 28, 2010 at 4:58 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.