The Proof is in the Policy
|
|
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Tags: 2008 Presidential Election in New Mexico, campaign finance, Ethics, John McCain
Tags: 2008 Presidential Election in New Mexico, campaign finance, Ethics, John McCain
On Saturday, JD posted a nice piece on John McCain's first national, general election tv commercial, 7 months out from the November election. The Center for American Progress (CAP) also noted that McCain was in our neighboring state to the north this past Thursday, accepting a ton of campaign cash from the oil and gas industry at Denver's Petroleum Club (link).
As CAP reported, McCain's tax cut proposal provides $3.8 billion to Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy and Marathon. To put that tax cut into perspective, it's a billion dollars more than the state of New Mexico spends on our entire public school system each year.
It's striking how McCain's Colorado fundraiser captures the fundamental outlines of the emerging presidential election contest.
First, the Southwest, and New Mexico in particular, are the nation's ground zero for the Presidential contest.
Second, the battle lines are being drawn, already framed in the Southwest: McCain the war hero versus McCain the corporate shill.
And third, this question over who the real John McCain is has parallels in New Mexico, as many Democratic and Republican candidates will soon struggle to reconcile their stated policy independence from their record of industry contributions.
How do you know whether to trust an elected official's statement of policy independence from his or her contributors? In the end, the proof is in the policy. When McCain bases his economic stimulus proposal on these tax giveaways to industries, or similarly when New Mexico legislators bend over backwards to protect the uranium or coal or oil industries, then you have at best a coincidence of ideologies between donor and recipient -- or at worst, an indication that a policy-for-contribution quid pro quo may actually exist. The former occurs quite often, with ideologically driven donors supporting candidates who, not surprisingly, agree with them. The latter case inserts itself into voters' consciousnesses when the words of a candidate differ from his or her policy actions.
It seems impossible, or at least very difficult, to prove that a quid pro quo exists. But when a candidate's words and actions differ, certainly the appearance of impropriety enters the political dialogue.
As CAP reported, McCain's tax cut proposal provides $3.8 billion to Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy and Marathon. To put that tax cut into perspective, it's a billion dollars more than the state of New Mexico spends on our entire public school system each year.
It's striking how McCain's Colorado fundraiser captures the fundamental outlines of the emerging presidential election contest.
First, the Southwest, and New Mexico in particular, are the nation's ground zero for the Presidential contest.
Second, the battle lines are being drawn, already framed in the Southwest: McCain the war hero versus McCain the corporate shill.
And third, this question over who the real John McCain is has parallels in New Mexico, as many Democratic and Republican candidates will soon struggle to reconcile their stated policy independence from their record of industry contributions.
How do you know whether to trust an elected official's statement of policy independence from his or her contributors? In the end, the proof is in the policy. When McCain bases his economic stimulus proposal on these tax giveaways to industries, or similarly when New Mexico legislators bend over backwards to protect the uranium or coal or oil industries, then you have at best a coincidence of ideologies between donor and recipient -- or at worst, an indication that a policy-for-contribution quid pro quo may actually exist. The former occurs quite often, with ideologically driven donors supporting candidates who, not surprisingly, agree with them. The latter case inserts itself into voters' consciousnesses when the words of a candidate differ from his or her policy actions.
It seems impossible, or at least very difficult, to prove that a quid pro quo exists. But when a candidate's words and actions differ, certainly the appearance of impropriety enters the political dialogue.
