OPINION & EDITORIAL
The politics of perception
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Paul Temple:
- Stop genocide in Darfur (April 28, 2005)
- America turns blind eye to Darfur (December 5, 2005)
- Examining The Badger Herald from outside (January 26, 2006)
- Newspapers must take extreme care in dealing with victim identity (February 2, 2006)
- Editorial on Covenant plan inadequately researched (February 9, 2006)
Related Stories:
- A runt needs milk (January 29, 2004)
- Dual disregard (May 6, 2004)
- Quit whining! In-state students are already taking taxpayers for a ride (July 11, 2001)
- Unflattering survey shows need for UW to better promote itself (March 1, 2006)
- Doyle demands emphasis on education (August 31, 2007)
by Paul Temple
Thursday, December 4, 2003
As citizens, we have the perception that many of our state’s most powerful politicians do not care about our interests. After all, they cut our university system deeper than it has ever been cut before, effectively raising tuition, cutting class sizes and ignoring the vital investment higher education can play in the state’s economic future. We have neither the political muscle nor the financial influence to have a real say with the decision-makers at the other end of State Street.
But a new bill could rescue us from our ever-waning confidence in the state’s political system. Oddly mirroring the McCain-Feingold legislation, a campaign finance reform bill introduced by an independent Republican and a liberal Democrat from Middleton might receive real debate in the State Capitol soon. S.B. 12, sponsored by State Senators Michael Ellis (R-Neenah) and Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton), may finally see the light of day.
In a previous column, I discussed Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) and their considerable influence over the Republican jobs legislation. And, to a lesser extent, the influence the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) has over the Governor and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin is also powerful.Republicans will certainly point at Democratic opposition to the property-tax freeze, a position benefiting WEAC members, during the next election. They will also point to the hundreds of thousands of dollars WEAC has poured into state elections so as to support, directly and indirectly, Democratic candidates for several years — not to mention the fact that the property-tax freeze is hugely popular.
Personally, I believe the freeze is a terrible idea. But therein lies the point, right? Democrats oppose it, regardless of who gives them money.
So in fairness to both the Democrats and the Republicans in the State Capitol, it may be the case that money does not change votes — it simply follows votes. After all, one would be hard-pressed to find a liberal against increasing funding to primary education or a conservative against tax cuts, regardless of who contributes to their campaigns. And I’m certainly not about to give $1,500 to Assembly Speaker John Gard (R-Peshtigo) with the belief that it will get him to come out against the conceal-and-carry legislation. (Though if that were a possibility, I’d be the first to sign a check.)
So what is the problem? Isn’t this all perception?
Probably not. But even if it is a knee-jerk reaction, we should pass campaign-finance-reform legislation anyway.
This comes down to one word: Access.
It has become regretfully clear to me that no matter what your political inclinations, money will get you “face time” with a politician. I once worked as a fund-raiser on political campaigns, as well as for the interest groups that give them money. I devoted considerable hours — paid and unpaid — to working for causes with which I continue to strongly agree. But when a hot-button issue comes up, the guys who gave “representatives” a few thousand dollars get phone calls and dinners, while volunteers and voters get form letters — or worse, the shaft.
Take, for example, the experience of Greg Kubiak. He worked as a legislative assistant in a Senate office in Washington, D.C. In his book, the “Gilded Dome,” he speaks of senators only accepting phone calls and appointment requests from a Rolodex of contributors. Everyone else, including the “average” voters and constituents within that Senator’s district, were sent form letters developed by assistants and signed with an auto-pen.
And in the most recent drafting of the Republican-backed jobs bill, top lobbyists and contributors played a major role in writing the legislation. Some watchdog groups even have evidence that many lobbyists actually write their own legislation, regardless of which party happens to back it.
It comes as no surprise that this institutionalized access-buying is at least as bad as, if not worse than, the widespread perception that votes can be bought. Voters don’t feel withdrawn and abandoned by their legislators because they lack the financial muscle of major interest groups like WMC or WEAC. They feel withdrawn because most members of both parties will listen to those interest groups every day of the week and twice on Sunday before taking time out for an “average constituent.”
I may have doubts about the soundness of an argument claiming that legislators’ votes are for sale. In fact, empirical studies in political science show that these blanket claims are almost impossible to prove. But there can be absolutely no doubt that something equally important to representative government — substantive time with an elected official — is for sale.
Politics is about perception, real or imagined. But the consequences of those perceptions for our democracy and the future of our state government are absolutely clear. Money buys access. As a result, too many of us no longer care, feel left out and fail to exercise our greatest power: The vote. Ellis and Erpenbach are fighting to change that perception. They deserve all the support we can give them, regardless of which party we support.
Paul Temple (ptemple@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in political science and philosophy.
