There are 537 elected officials representing all Americans in our federal government. So, disregarding the inequalities that result from congressional district sizing and the 2-per-state allocation of Senate seats, this means that each elected official represents, on average, around 575,000 Americans. This number alone should raise an eyebrow or two, in that it begs the question of adequate representation, but while the ratio does further dilute the voice of the average person, its impact pales when compared to the effects of a government sold to the highest bidder.

Washington, long ago, lost any semblance of legitimate representation of The People. Being one voice in a half-million may seem weak, but the reality is that the average person’s voice is far smaller than that. Both the Presidency and the Congress of 21^st Century America have been purchased, and unless you have tens of thousands of dollars to contribute to election campaigns, you really have no voice at all.

Elections are costly. Contributions for the 2008 federal campaign totaled $5.3 billion. The average winner of a House seat spent $1.4 million while the average Senate seat went for $8.5 million. Sure, there are many small donors; in fact, about half of the 2008 money came from donations of under $200. Unfortunately, that means the other half came from larger donations, with $1.9 billion coming from donations over $2,300, and $974 million in large donations — over $10,000.

It’s these large donations that do more than merely help support a candidate; they are the currency of government. The average Joe, who donates $10 or $25 to their favorite candidate, expects nothing specific in return, but such is not the case for the Goldman Sachs of the world. As expected, in the shadow of the housing/banking crash, the 2008 election was largely financed by big banks, insurance companies and real estate. The largest contributor to the 2008 election, this sector donated $477 million. And companies like Goldman, who topped bank spenders at more then $7 million, and JPMorgan and Citigroup, who each coughed up over $5 million, don’t spend money unless it improves profits.

The fact that no financial reform legislation was passed, for more than two years after Bear Stearns crashed and started the collapse of the economy, is prima facie evidence of the power of campaign capital. It’s no coincidence that the top donor for Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the chair of the Senate’s committee for banking and housing, is the securities and banking sector — the very people he’s charged to oversee. The nearly $5 million investment the sector made in contributions, over the 2008 and 2010 cycles, to Dodd and the ranking committee Republican, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), not only helped stall legislation for years, but it paid for the diluted excuse for “reform” that was finally passed.

This is but one example of business-as-usual in Washington.  Healthcare legislation wrangled its way through Congress for most of 2009, while the Health industry was busy greasing the skids with $84 million in campaign donations. Their investment was not in vain. It actually produced excellent returns, netting 32 million new government sponsored patients and nothing in the way of real reform. Energy, Communication/Electronics, Trial Lawyers, they’re all present, and they’re all spending millions to make sure that any legislation that’s passed is favorable to their business profits. With government so clearly under the control of big-business, is it any wonder why the 61.7% voter turnout for the 2008 election was the high-water mark since 1968?

American voters feel increasingly frustrated with Washington politics, and there’s good reason for it. Regardless of which party people support, it’s becoming more evident with every passing year that the will of The People is being ignored, their voices unheard beneath the din of the corporate campaign hijacking.

Angry conservatives are already gathering under banners proclaiming, “Take our country back!” But the loss of voice in Washington politics isn’t a partisan issue. Campaign funding for the 2010 election, and the control that goes with it, is nearly split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans. There may be legitimate political differences being liberal and conservative voters, but neither is served when special interests have bought and paid for the federal government.

If indeed the country is ever to be taken back, Americans from left and right must join forces on this critical issue. Together, they can put an end to big-money control of Congress. It’s time voters stop falling for the blatant misdirection of party talking points and start demanding results. The American people can take back control of the nation, and the surest path to that end is through real campaign finance reform.

The sad truth is that while votes are the mechanism by which politicians are elected, it’s money that makes campaigns — and campaigns are the means through which votes are secured. Today’s system ensures that elected officials are beholding to the big-money donors who finance their election. The People are but pawns in this game of quid pro quo, and they will remain so until and unless they unite and change the system that allows this corruption to exist.

Like students left with the huge loan balances, the present system ensures that our elected officials are left with huge favor balances on their books. To think that politicians will bite the hand that feeds them and vote against the interests of their big-money benefactors is delusional at best. To take back the country, The People must take back the Congress, and to take back the Congress, the politicians must once again be beholding, not to influence peddling special interests, but to the people who elect them. One person, one vote must again reflect the control of the nation.

There’s only one way to make this happen, and that’s through public financing of elections. It’s already working in several states in the form of Clean Elections. And there’s a bipartisan bill in the House and also the Senate to bring similar reform to Washington. Public financing will require that candidates secure significant funding in small donations from their constituents before qualifying for public money. But once established as a viable candidate, public funding would be allocated in amounts sufficient to finance a competitive campaign.

The power of such a system is obvious. For a relatively small investment, American voters could actually ensure that elected officials would owe their loyalty to no one but the people who elected them. It would in essence break the favor bank.

But the benefits of public campaign financing don’t end with properly placed loyalties. The investment would also pay dividends in productivity, as it would mitigate the demand for fund raising by incumbents. In the present system, officials start focusing on the next election cycle as soon as they’re elected. Estimates place fund raising efforts for members of Congress at 20% to 40% of their time. With so much misuse of time, is it any wonder they get so little done? It’s like a business that pays its employees to look for another job two days out of every week.

Public campaign finance is not a silver bullet; it won’t by itself bring the federal government back under the control of The People, but without it — there is no hope of that happening. The removal of special interest influence on election campaigns is a critical first step for Americans to take back the country. Couple public financing with preferential voting, which would allow a significant increase in votes for third party candidates, add congressional term limits and weld shut the revolving lobbyist door, and America may once again return to a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

American democracy is in tatters, and there’s an essential truth that the public needs to understand — the professional politicians we keep sending to Washington are not going to do a damn thing to fix it. As I’ve already written: it doesn’t serve their purpose. Their collective objective is not the resolution of tough issues, for resolution would require not only advancing partisan ideologies but also admitting validity in the opposition’s case. Such validation would go a long way toward the adoption of real solutions, but unfortunately, it does not serve the primary goal of our politicians — to be reelected.

Elections today are expensive, extremely expensive. According to the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI), the average amount spent by 2008 Congressional winners was $1.4 million for the House and over $7.5 million for the Senate. Costs like these obviously require high levels of campaign fund raising. This money has to come from somewhere, and unfortunately for the average American citizen, both the PACs (Political Action Committee) and big-money donors are there to meet the need.

CFI reports that the campaign fund receipts from PACs for the period leading up to the 2008 election totaled $78 million for the Senate and a whopping $308 million for the House. Add to these totals, the war chest proceeds flowing from $1000-plus donors ($295 million for the House and $158 million for the Senate), and you’ve accounted for the vast majority of funding for any given race (Senate = 60%, House = 71%). Sadly, you’ve also accounted for who will control the United States Congress.

Our dysfunctional form of election practically guarantees that, in order to fulfill their campaign obligations, representatives on either side of the aisle will pander to the special interests. Like students who borrow to fund their education, our elected officials are burdened with debts they must repay. So, they service their debt to their major financial supporters by passing sweetheart legislation, and even more insidiously, by doing nothing at all — by clogging the legislative pump and stalling the adoption of regulation and reform.

If you have any doubt about how active this destructive form of self-serving politics is, you need look no further than the current activities of our Congress. If you’re a liberal, do you really think that the recent healthcare legislation was pro-citizen? Did you ask yourself why the public option lost support so early in the debate? The sad truth is that the entire debate was little more than a stage show. Without either the public option or provisions to control costs, the bill amounts to a government subsidized influx of 32 million new patients. It’s a big win for both the medical insurance industry and the big pharmaceutical companies. More patients, no cost controls, no competition — you apply the logic.

So does this suggest that the conservatives might have taken the high road in the healthcare debate? Come on, surely you jest. The Republican role in this sick little dance is even more despicable. Conservative leaders are even deeper into the pockets of the health sector than the Democrats, but with liberals having majorities in both houses, they were able to sit on the sidelines and just let the legislation pass. If they had desired to do anything but feign resistance, they would have offered real criticism and alternatives, rather than ridiculous hyperbole. Once the public option was dropped, there really was no legitimate debate left in Congress. The Republicans kept beating the “socialism” drum, although it had completely lost its relevance, and did everything they could to shroud the debate in a smoke screen of polarizing rhetoric, while passively acquiescing for the benefit of their financial masters.

One could argue that at least the Democrats did provide a service to the 32 million and others, albeit very likely at a severe cost to the future of America. Meanwhile, the Republicans served only themselves (and their benefactors), and in the process fueled the left/right rift with heated hyperbole that consisted mostly of lies and damn lies. At the end of the day, one thing is certain: neither party took the side of those of us in the middle, even though we are the ones who will foot the bill.

Once again, healthcare is just an example of government bought and paid for. For another, witness the speed at which our illustrious leaders have effected responsive change to address the banking collapse. The worst blow sustained by our economy since the Great Depression, and two full years after the fall of Bear Stearns, we still have no legislation passed to prevent it from happening again. When the investment bank “house of cards” collapsed, our federal government did nothing but write checks to the very people who brought about the disaster. Those responsible are now, of course, back to business as usual, while the rest of us, the people who will again be forced to pick up the tab, are left out in the cold.

Should this be a surprise? Come on, just look at the numbers . . . the important numbers: who’s giving to whom? Senator Chris Dodd, the number one Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, the folk who should have been scampering to address the mess, is a puppet for the very interests he’s charged with controlling. Over his career, Chris Dodd has received more money from securities and investment interests than any other sector. In the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles alone, he took nearly $3 million from this biggest of money industry. Is there any wonder why he’s taken the “do nothing” tack? He has sponsored legislation that recently leaked out of committee, but even at this late date, he’s pushing for a weak solution that’s palatable to big banking. And before you claim a partisan foul, you’ll need to consider that Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), Dodd’s Republican counterpart on the banking committee, is also getting his palms greased with financial sector green. He’s not as successful as Dodd, but his $1.8 million from the securities and commercial banking sectors has obviously been enough to buy his silence.

Here’s the facts folks: whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, whether you see yourself as conservative or liberal, it doesn’t really matter. Unless you are very rich, very poor, or already elderly, the federal government is serving itself at your expense. We, the hard working Americans in the middle, have been split by a self-serving Congress who has divvied up the arguing points to keep us divided while they serve the extremes.

In order to serve their benefactors, and at the same time energize the activists in their respective parties, the United States Congress relies on deception and subterfuge. Their con of choice has become vehement argument focused always on the aspects of their political positions that they present as mutually exclusive. The problem is that the exclusivity is an illusion. It’s the smoke screen needed to enable their sleight of hand. Keep your eye on the ball, and you’ll see that it’s a false divide. It’s two sides of the same coin.

The Republicans pound their doctrine of tax reduction and reduced regulation, casting government as the enemy of the American dream, while the Democrats play the siren song of increased services. The Republican machine targets the business class with a song of praise for free enterprise, while also tuning in some working class with the beat of the anti-welfare drum. The Democrats carve their niche straight into the heart of middleclass America, targeting unions and labor, but also casting their net into the ranks of the less fortunate, the underdogs and those who wish to help them.

If this sounds like an oversimplification, that’s because it is — but don’t assign responsibility to me. Oh no, this is the gerrymandered line chosen by the parties for their never-ending clash of the causes, and we, the American public, are held hostage by the diversionary debate. The Republicans are right that we should seek to strengthen the economics engines of our nation and not stifle growth with excess taxation or regulation. The Democrats too deserve praise for the way they uphold the spirit of our founding and insist that while we seek prosperity, we must always preserve opportunity for all Americans and never forsake our ethical obligation to assist those in need. Both sides have valid points, and both sides are tag-teaming to drive our country straight off a cliff.

I recently wrote a piece on what I consider to be our most significant substantive issue, the federal debt and unfunded obligations. This is the “Godzilla in the room,” and while it alone represents a deep, dark abyss looming in America’s future, it’s still a symptom. If we are to have any chance of permanently addressing this or any other major symptom, we must focus on the disease itself. And the disease in this case is cancer, a cancer that has laid our nation up in the economic infirmary and metastasized throughout our federal government. The root cause of this cancer is greed, and the only treatment known to be effective is campaign reform.

If you love America like I love America, please help to put an end to big-money control of our Congress. Don’t let the politicians lure you into false battles, where they attempt to label other hard working citizens as the problem. We’re all in this together, and it’s time we stop falling for this blatant misdirection. It’s time to demand results. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball and hold our representatives feet to the fire. Let’s take control of our nation back. Let’s support real campaign reform.

We want our elected officials to be beholding to us — the people who elect them. There’s only one way to make that happen, and that’s through public financing of elections. It’s already working in several states in the form of Clean Elections. And there’s a bipartisan bill in House and also the Senate to bring similar reform to Washington. Couple public financing with preferential voting, which would allow a significant increase in votes for third party candidates, add term limits and weld shut the revolving lobbyist door, and we just might return to a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Please get involved. Spread the word. We are America and we want it back!

“Once you understand that the resolution authority is an illusion, you begin to understand that the Dodd legislation would achieve nothing on the systemic risk and too big to fail front.”
Simon Johnson, MIT Professor, co-author of 13 Bankers

People need to take notice of what’s going on here. Senator Dodd’s bill absolutely needs to be sunshined and debated. This is not sound financial system reform and regulation, and all Americans need to be concerned. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t understand all the aspects of cross-border financial institutions, but I do appreciate some regulation issues, especially where the detection component of resolution authority is involved. It just opens up an additional layer of confusion with tracking derivatives and off balance sheet transactions. Wasn’t that a big part of what was behind Lehman and Repo105?

Financial reform must definitely be high on our list of priorities, but we need to do it right. Our nation can ill afford another round like the recent meltdown. The government itself is unlikely to have the resources to put things back together next time.

I’m nowhere close to being an economist, but even I can see that Chris Dodd has put together a gift to the banking industry. Relying on resolution authority is one thing, but putting the CFPA inside the Fed and allowing the FSOC to veto its decisions . . . it’s like putting the hen in the fox house! And then leaving everything to the discretion of an agency that can be overruled, rather than setting the guidelines it will enforce into law — it’s slight of hand, and Dodd, the conman, will be gone before we find out we were ripped off.

The bill needs to have measures in place that will force the Fed’s hand, otherwise what are the chances they’ll have the nerve to test the system and pull the trigger? Real reform will have hard caps on size and leverage ratios, derivative reform, and definitive remediation requirements. It will also have a fully independent CFPA that’s not subject to FSOC control, and does have control over non-bank entities, like auto dealers.  As is, this will be a mess, but I’m still hopeful that real reformers like Ted Kaufman will stop Dodd from launching his lobbyist career on this watered down smoke-screen excuse for financial reform.