What to Say Instead of "I Can't Be Bought"

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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>

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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
There might even be an auction, with both sides wanting something,
and the something going to the highest bidder.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---