In January of 2015, the financial budget for the political activities of the Wichita, Kansas Koch brothers and their largely anonymous partners for the 2016 political Presidential and Congressional campaign was announced as close to $900 million, an amount rivaling the budgets of the established Republican and Democratic Parties. The money will be provided by the Kochs and approximately 300 billionaires and multi-millionaires they have recruited over the years. In 2012, the same network spent slightly under $400 million. Much of the money contributed is through non-profit organizations formed for political purposes and who are not required to disclose the identity of their contributors.

Money and its ability to influence elected officials to pass favorable legislation benefitting the contributing donors—sometimes in visible opposition to the community’s interest as a whole—is one of the more seamy realities of politics. Since the beginning of the Republic, well-heeled citizens have sought to wrest financial benefits from the operation of law and the nation’s business. Crony capitalism—government favoritism between business people and government officials leading to special permits, grants, and tax breaks—exists in every political system of the world, more obviously in some economies than others.

 

Past efforts to control the influence of wealthy contributors have been largely ineffective. Whenever legislation has been adopted to curtail or expose the activities of rich donors, the laws are immediately attacked by Congressional representatives—bought and paid for by the monied interests—with efforts to repeal, delay, and weaken the laws’ effectiveness. Neither the donors nor their political allies are eager to expose their relationship or any quid pro quo that might exist between the two.

 

The relationship between candidates and their supporters is particularly relevant when the donations made and the benefits received in return are large. For example, no one realistically expects a contributor of $1000 in a Congressional race to have the same access and influence as the multimillionaire who contributes $100,000. At the same time, it is illogical that large donors do not expect payback for their funds. As a consequence, transparency of the relationship between donors and political officials and candidates is even more critical to the successful operation of democracy.

 

History has shown that there is no shortage of officials and candidates willing to sell their votes in return for financial bribes and support. At the same time, there is a paucity of significant donors who make political contributions to the public good alone. Everyone seeks to protect their own interests or is looking for a competitive edge. The current lack of transparency benefits the large-monied interests and the beneficiaries of their largess. It is one thing when an American Congressman votes to approve the controversial Keystone Pipeline extension because it helps a business in his district and quite another when his sole motivation is to gain unlimited political contributions from those who will benefit the most financially.

As old-time detectives are fond of saying when trying to solve a crime, one of the first objectives in the information-gathering process is to “follow the money.” In other words, personal advantage over others—whether it be higher profits, lower taxes or fewer regulations—is a powerful incentive to maintain a complicated, often obscure political contribution system. Unfortunately, the majority of citizens—those lacking the financial means to influence legislation—invariably lose rights and freedoms as a result.

 

Transparency is a powerful tool. The power of sunlight and total public exposure affects individuals, businesses, and citizens alike. By exposing relationships, the public is better able to distinguish the motives behind legislation and react accordingly. As my parents taught me as a young boy, don’t do anything that you are ashamed for other people to know. If you are worried about what people might think, you are probably doing something you should not be doing.

 

I don’t think it is possible to shut or even reduce the flow of funds from powerful forces to elected officials. However, it seems reasonable that transparency—exposure of transactions and relationships—should be at least a minimum requirement for any political contribution at any level. A strong democracy needs a level playing field between the participants and the beneficiaries of the political system. I would also ask donors: Why are you opposed to public disclosures of your political activities? Are you ashamed of your activity or any consequences that might result if your support becomes public?

 

What do you think? Are existing laws sufficient to protect the Republic? Would knowing who supports a particular politician be a benefit or a disadvantage to you? Would it change the candidates home you support?