You are here
What to Say Instead of "I Can't Be Bought"
Thursday, April 4th, 2013
Robert Wechsler
We often hear elected officials saying, "I can't be bought at any
price." The assumption behind this statement is that there is no
amount of money, no job offer, nothing that will make the elected
official act or vote any way than the way he otherwise intends to
act or vote, that he cannot be influenced.
In a discussion forum I follow, journalist Ben Adler pointed out that there might actually be different prices for different acts. Sometimes elected officials accept gifts or campaign contributions from people who simply want to nudge them a bit this way or that, a provision or even a word, which would not go against the official's views or values at all. The price for this would presumably be low.
The price would presumably rise as it went against the official's views, against the clear preference of the official's constituents, or against the official's party leaders. The price would be less when a change would likely not be noticed, than when it was a big issue.
A vote in a committee would presumably cost less than a vote on the floor. A procedural vote would cost less than either, most of the time.
There might even be an auction, with both sides wanting something, and the something going to the highest bidder.
Here is where I move on from Adler's views. When there is no question of principle and no clear public interest (the norm in local government), is an official really being "bought" at all? Influenced, maybe. But citizens seek to influence officials all the time, with every e-mail, call, and letter. Influence itself is not bad. Campaign contributions themselves are not bad.
Being influenced is not being "bought." But influence, done professionally, costs money. Even if no money exchanges hands, lobbyists "buy" officials in a way that an ordinary citizen does not. But it's still just influence.
In other words, there is no clear definition of "being bought," nor is it reasonable to say that one doesn't have a price, since different sums of money are constantly being accepted from people who benefit from officials' decisions.
It isn't about having a price. It's about representing constituents at the same time one is running for office. One involves influence and the other involves money. If those trying to influence are those making campaign contributions, or offering gifts, then it means nothing to say, "I can't be bought." From the public's point of the view, you can be bought. From a practical point of view, each sort of act and each sort of vote has, at least potentially, a price.
And from the official's point of view, politics is a matter of give and take. It's complex and ongoing. Give and take is not made up of single transactions.
Any official who has done anything that benefits someone who gave money to that official (or gives money afterwards), even legally, cannot honestly say, "I can't be bought at any price." What he should say is, "Unfortunately, since I'm not independently wealthy, I have to take campaign contributions in order to represent you. If I refuse to take contributions from those seeking benefits from the government, I will not have enough money to run. Unless I withdraw from too many important matters, I will be making and influencing decisions that will benefit some of these contributors. Making these decisions will look bad. I would like to do it differently, but until enough officials vote for public financing, and agree to openly criticize anyone who pays for independent ads favoring them or attacking their opponents, I have to look like I can be bought or the reason I won't be able to be bought is that I will not be in office. Where, by the way, I think I do a damn good job representing you."
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
In a discussion forum I follow, journalist Ben Adler pointed out that there might actually be different prices for different acts. Sometimes elected officials accept gifts or campaign contributions from people who simply want to nudge them a bit this way or that, a provision or even a word, which would not go against the official's views or values at all. The price for this would presumably be low.
The price would presumably rise as it went against the official's views, against the clear preference of the official's constituents, or against the official's party leaders. The price would be less when a change would likely not be noticed, than when it was a big issue.
A vote in a committee would presumably cost less than a vote on the floor. A procedural vote would cost less than either, most of the time.
There might even be an auction, with both sides wanting something, and the something going to the highest bidder.
Here is where I move on from Adler's views. When there is no question of principle and no clear public interest (the norm in local government), is an official really being "bought" at all? Influenced, maybe. But citizens seek to influence officials all the time, with every e-mail, call, and letter. Influence itself is not bad. Campaign contributions themselves are not bad.
Being influenced is not being "bought." But influence, done professionally, costs money. Even if no money exchanges hands, lobbyists "buy" officials in a way that an ordinary citizen does not. But it's still just influence.
In other words, there is no clear definition of "being bought," nor is it reasonable to say that one doesn't have a price, since different sums of money are constantly being accepted from people who benefit from officials' decisions.
It isn't about having a price. It's about representing constituents at the same time one is running for office. One involves influence and the other involves money. If those trying to influence are those making campaign contributions, or offering gifts, then it means nothing to say, "I can't be bought." From the public's point of the view, you can be bought. From a practical point of view, each sort of act and each sort of vote has, at least potentially, a price.
And from the official's point of view, politics is a matter of give and take. It's complex and ongoing. Give and take is not made up of single transactions.
Any official who has done anything that benefits someone who gave money to that official (or gives money afterwards), even legally, cannot honestly say, "I can't be bought at any price." What he should say is, "Unfortunately, since I'm not independently wealthy, I have to take campaign contributions in order to represent you. If I refuse to take contributions from those seeking benefits from the government, I will not have enough money to run. Unless I withdraw from too many important matters, I will be making and influencing decisions that will benefit some of these contributors. Making these decisions will look bad. I would like to do it differently, but until enough officials vote for public financing, and agree to openly criticize anyone who pays for independent ads favoring them or attacking their opponents, I have to look like I can be bought or the reason I won't be able to be bought is that I will not be in office. Where, by the way, I think I do a damn good job representing you."
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments