It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. . . . The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government.
So warns Federalist No. 51. Federalist No. 51, generally attributed to James Madison, was written according to its author, to "form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the Constitutional Convention." The author observes that the best way to protect the rights of individuals in a federal republic is to distribute governing power amongst various sects and interests. When any particular group gains majority status in a republic, such group can wield power against the liberties of a minority.
We have seen in a dramatic fashion how political power concentrated in one political party has produced a loss of freedoms in this nation in recent years. Most recently, we have seen how the United States, controlled by one political party, i.e. a majority faction in political power, has brought about change at the expense of the liberties of the people. We have seen the usurpation of health care decisions, the takeover of large business interests, and the expansion of the federal deficit all at the cost of the American tax payer and their descendants. Such abuse of power is not limited to one political party. We should not forget that the TARP bailouts were supported by both of the last two administrations. The government, when controlled by both political parties, has overseen the subjugation of the people to massive federal debt. In light of these warnings from Madison, the citizens should be wary of any effort to concentrate power in political parties.
In 2010, the Missouri Legislature gave the state of Missouri an ethics reform law which will help concentrate political power in the two major political parties in the state. SB 844 is a wide ranging ethics and campaign disclosure bill. There are many things in SB 844 which are arguably improvements in the state’s laws regulating the conduct of political campaigns. (It is important to understand that ultimately no law can guard the integrity of the political and legislative process as can the electorate by electing honest individuals to office. Only by the voters seeking honest men and women of integrity to fill offices of power will liberty be secured. I will discuss these principles later in this editorial.) However, in many respects, the campaign reforms look to impose ethical standards on the wrong interests. Rather than addressing the standards and ethics of the candidates and elected officials themselves, it seeks to restrict the liberties of the citizens.
Take for examples a new restriction on the operation of political action committees, or PACs for short. PACs are private funds collected by groups of people with similar interests or philosophy. The new law prohibits PACs from receiving money from other PACs and other types of committees, such as a candidate’s own committee. The theory behind this restriction is that it prevents citizens from disguising the source of money contributed to a political campaign. By imposing such restrictions on PACs, we make it easier to assess what interest groups are influencing a particular official. In contrast, a candidate’s committee and political parties are not subject to such restrictions, and one committee for each political party for each chamber of the Missouri General Assembly as designated by the political party or official of the party is explicitly exempted from the restriction.
In our culture, political campaigns are most effectively conducted through the media outlets of television and radio. Media costs money. Therefore, money and political contributions are the facilitators of speech. Money is speech. The Constitution of the State of Missouri, no less than the U.S. Constitution, guarantees that now law will be made impairing the right of speech and that all people have the right to assemble together for their common good and apply to those invested with the power of government.
The practical effect of the new restrictions is to force PACs to either contribute their funds to a political party committee or to a candidate’s committee. Once money has been donated to a PAC, such money is unavailable to another PAC. The restriction prohibits PACs from combining their resources. While political parties may aggregate their resources and power, private assemblies of people may not. Such restrictions concentrate power in the political parties, and they deny speech to the people that they permit to political parties.
If we must regulate ethics, let us regulate the ethics of the subject under consideration. If I, as a lobbyist, were to approach a legislator with a bribe, the critical conduct of the transaction is whether the legislator accepts the bribe. It is the honesty and integrity of the legislator that is of paramount importance to the state. My conduct of offering the bribe is irrelevant to the legislative process if the bribe is rejected. Therefore, it is the ethics and the susceptibility to influence of the legislator that is the critical subject of ethical regulation.
Our constitutional principles clearly anticipate that citizens will influence elected officials. It is Section 9 of the Missouri Constitution which assures the people of the right to assemble and apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievance by petition or remonstrance. The problem, of course, is the exercise of improper influence. In the same paragraph quoted above, the author writes that, “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” Our problem is that we have lost sight of the true meaning of justice. Our legislative process is constantly pitting one interest against another. We legislate the taking of money from one group for the payment of benefits to another group simply because one group has money and another does not. Our nation is so completely in debt that the liberties of our children’s children will be infringed for the benefits doled out to the politically favored today. Is this justice? If our legislatures would return to their primary function and if our people would insist upon our legislatures protecting the liberty of all individuals, there would be less opportunity for the exercise of improper influence.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment