Voters be damned – Unless you brought your wallet.
Health care is not the only legislative item on the agenda these days, to be sure, but it does have something in common with many of the other subjects up for procrastination in this Congressional session – Money.
Specifically, there are a number of legislative initiatives that seem to be losing steam, or are being actively stalled, because some organization somewhere (with a lot of money) doesn’t want to see it happen. In spite of the fact that so many voters do want to see these things happen.
But votes won’t pay the rent, evidently. Nor will they pay for the 30-second targeted ad buys in hotly contested voting districts, and the lawn signs and bumper stickers and banners that apparently are required purchases for the upcoming midterm elections.
Like many of my fellow lowly voters, I think I’ve been operating under a foolish assumption for far too long; I’ve assumed that our elected officials were elected to vote/act/speak on behalf of the majority of their constituents (a.k.a. – you and me).
This is, as I’m sure we all realize now, not the case. In fact, it was a rather childish view to hold of the political process, and I feel a bit silly for having thought so.
I present exhibit A
In the above story, big livestock interests (read: corporate farms) and Great Lakes shipping interests (read: massive shipping companies/corporations) managed to hamstring some important legislation that would have allowed the EPA to actually do their job and enforce companies to comply with environmental protection standards and guidelines.
I’m fairly certain that the voters, like myself, would have preferred clean air and water that we could all benefit from. The problem is that I don’t know any voters who can pony up $25k to toss to one Congressional candidate. But companies can.
It’s as simple as following the money. And it’s every bit as infuriating (if you care, that is) as having your money taken from you.
The health care debate suffers from the same potential fate. According to polling data, 54% of those polled agree that major changes are needed to the health care system in this country, and 61% say that it is important for Congress to pass health care legislation this year.
But then again, where is the money? The real money, as we know, comes from insurance providers and large health conglomerates, who have little to no interest in seeing any significant change to the status quo.
So, then, what is a congressman (or woman) to do?
If you’re like me, you foolishly believe at one point or another that elected officials were supposed to be voting along the lines of those who elected them. And you would assume, once again foolishly, that the people (like you and me) who punched the card in the ballot would be the ones who elected them.
I would add an additional layer to this question: Certainly you should vote in line with those who voted for you, but what about the national level? If you’ve been elected to the House or Senate, you’ve been placed in a position that now has two concerns – your local constituents, and the good of the entire country.
Never an easy balance to strike, of course, but when voting for or proposing legislation, you now have to be concerned with two categories – what’s good for the voters in my district/state/hometown, and what’s good the country at this time?
Then, add a third wrinkle – what do my major campaign contributors want me to do?
This third category seems to be where the largest problems come from.
I don’t have an answer for you, though I certainly wish I did. It’s painfully obvious that when you follow the money, you can pretty quickly tell where a candidate will fall on particular issues. What I have yet to figure out, however, is the solution. Limiting campaign contributions to $5 is not practical, so what is the answer?
If I find it, I’ll be sure to let you know. In the meantime, if you’re unhappy with how your particular Senator/Congressman is voting or speaking, feel free to extend them a healthy dose of unemployment and vote for someone else.
