Slaying the Quid Pro Quo Beast

It is election season, and as usual, most of us wish that it would all just go away. And yet, we know instinctively that anarchy is untenable, that there will always be a ruler, and that the organization of the state is primarily to see that the chosen ruler is more than simply the biggest, meanest thug. 

That is not to suggest that there is a political cure for our current cultural milieu. Christ in the hearts of believers is the only cure. And yet, it must be acknowledged that politics is a gift in as much as it can be a tool toward good.  

The problem, of course, is that power is so often attractive to the wrong kind of people. Though some in government are there because they truly want to serve, they are not the majority. All of our recent pontiffs have called upon government to be responsive to the persecuted, the working class, and the indigent. And yet, those do not seem to be the driving motives for most in government. 

In a recent article, I explored the subject of subsidiarity, explaining how it is both a Catholic and an American value—as articulated in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931) and the 10th amendment to our Constitution. I went on to discuss how a recent Supreme Court decision had huge potential to turn around the forty years of runaway bureaucracy that had reigned supreme because of a 1984 court precedent (Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council). The so-called Chevron Doctrine had allocated the interpretation of vague regulations to bureaucrats rather than to the various courts. 

Now, with that ridiculous precedent suitably allocated to the dust bin, Congress seems to be in somewhat of a free fall, not knowing how to go about writing law. In the words of Sen. Rand Paul, “The vast majority of all regulations in the last forty years have been because of the ambiguity.” Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, “We’re going to have to be much more specific in the lawmaking exercise…we’re going to have to have committees that have more staff in order to accommodate specific legislative writing.”

And some members of Congress boldly state that making laws will be nearly impossible if they have to achieve such exact specificity—that actually arriving at a consensus is nearly impossible. All of this is more or less admitting to a past process that seems to have involved writing a bunch of somewhat pertinent words on snippets of paper, throwing them into a basket, stirring a bit, and handing the word soup off to the experts—the bureaucrats—to form it into law. 

Case in point: Title IX. The original 1972 Title IX text—including its 1974, ’76, and ’88 legislated amendments—totals 1,890 words. The most recent version, effective this August 1, contains somewhere in the vicinity of 370,000 words; that is about 200 words of “interpretation” to every word of law. Aside from the obvious absurdity, it can hardly even be said that this was the intention of the majority opinion that established the Chevron Doctrine.  The original 1972 Title IX text—including its 1974, ’76, and ’88 legislated amendments—totals 1,890 words. The most recent version, effective this August 1, contains somewhere in the vicinity of 370,000 words.Tweet This

I have read the original Title IX. The “ambiguity” is largely imaginary, which brings up a very important point: what is ambiguous to me may be plain as day for you—that ambiguity is often a matter of personal perception, making a legal definition of it gravely difficult.  

By their own admission, Congress has not been performing its sole duty for the last forty years. In my estimation, and that of many, the less Congress does the better. But I digress. 

The new ruling is, of course, a win for subsidiarity, the simple principle that the people are better served by those entities closest to the local community—or put another way, by entities in which they have a say, a vote. This is the polar opposite of rule by bureaucracy. 

And yet, a huge hurdle remains. About 100 years ago, political satirist and comedian Will Rogers declared, “We have the best politicians that money can buy!” That is, of course, the same situation we face yet today. Campaign finance “reforms” of the past have been a slap in the face to voters. Thanks to such reforms, most large campaign donations are now laundered through Political Action Committees (PACs). 

The problem remains because the stakes are high. Perhaps you’ve noticed that nobody leaves Congress broke. Holding federal office is arguably one of the most lucrative endeavors one might ever seek, one that seems to come with a great deal of impunity. It just gets no better. Why would any of them vote to change it? Holding federal office is arguably one of the most lucrative endeavors one might ever seek, one that seems to come with a great deal of impunity. It just gets no better. Why would any of them vote to change it?Tweet This

Subsidiarity is grassroots. Politicians throw the term grassroots around as though they actually believe in it. Indeed, a few do, but we can probably count them on our fingers. The truth is many of them actually despise us commoners, and we need to find ways to turn this ship around. Appealing to candidates’ better selves, as the Church has been doing for ages, isn’t having the desired effect. Something in our supposed self-governance is seriously broken. 

Identifying that something is, of course, a simple task: follow the money. If you seriously overpay your servants and demand nothing from them, you will someday find yourself serving them, padding their wealth, kowtowing to their every whim. Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve arrived at that day. Congratulations. 

The change needs to come from us. We no longer need to wait for the media to become our voice. The days of grassroots efforts gaining the attention of the media—until the entire population is riveted with the idea—disappeared somewhere around the end of the 19th century. The legacy media is even more captive to big money than are our politicians. 

But we still have huge megaphones. Not all is lost. We have friends and family. We have church communities. We have patriots who run social media sites who, though under attack, are still running strong. We can make a difference, but the window for doing so may not be open for long. 

And so, I humbly propose a constitutional amendment to promote subsidiarity: 

Concerning Political Contributions from Non-Constituents

WHEREAS members of The United States Congress, the various state assemblies, the President of the United States, state governors, and all other elected officials are elected by their constituents to represent them and

WHEREAS political contributions have the very real possibility of introducing corruption into the political system and

WHEREAS contributions from outside of a candidate’s constituency have the distinct possibility of influencing a legislator or other public servant to consider acting upon things in ways that are not in the best interest of their actual constituency and 

WHEREAS the first duty of any public servant is to serve, in a just manner, their own constituency 

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THAT a Constitutional amendment be adopted preventing any candidate for public office from accepting campaign contributions from non-constituents, constituent to be understood as any person that is able to legally vote for said candidate, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT no constituent may be a channel for the delivery of any amount of money given by any person or organization outside of the constituency of a candidate and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT donations to political parties shall be given and accepted only in the name of a specific candidate and must follow all of the rules herein stated for such donations to political candidates and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT donations shall come only from individual persons and not from political action committees or any other such organizations and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the giving and acceptance of, or compliance in the delivery of illicit donations—illicit per the limits set forth in this document—shall be considered bribery and shall bear all of the same penalties, for both the giving and accepting party, as does bribery and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT if the giving party is a non-citizen living in the U.S. said alien shall be considered an enemy of the state and shall be charged accordingly and deported and the receiving party shall be deemed as having accepted a bribe from a foreign national and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT if the giving party is a non-citizen living outside of the U.S., they shall be deemed enemies of the state and treated as such in all future matters and the receiving party shall be deemed as having accepted a bribe from a foreign national and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT corporations, considered persons for many legal considerations, are not actually persons or constituent voters and will not be allowed, corporately, to donate money to any political candidates and that such donations shall be considered bribes and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT money is not speech and that the aforesaid restrictions shall not, in any case, be construed as an impediment to free speech or to freedom of association. 

This is plainly not a partisan issue, but there will be attempts to make it one. Indeed, the political parties (the uniparty) will despise it. It will doubtless be labeled exclusionary, sexist, racist, xenophobic, isolationist—you name it. The simple suggestion that a public official needs “to serve, in a just manner, their own constituency” will be received by some with all of the same disdain as was the notion of “America first.” 

It will very likely be seen as the intrusion of religious belief into the world of politics. It is not, and if it is, hurray! Religion affecting law is neither unethical nor illegal. Who will suffer from it? The crooks in Congress and the recipients of their bought and paid-for favors. Let them suffer. Please. 

It is long past time to slay this gargantuan, uniparty, quid pro quo beast. 

[Image Credit: Shutterstock]