Let's Not Kid Ourselves

Sens. Obama and McCain have recently made it a focal point of their respective campaigns to emphasize their claim to the title of the true Washington "maverick" who will take special interests out of the Beltway and return democracy back to the American public's interests.

Understandably, because of the general anti-special interests attitude of the American public, this sort of rhetoric has managed to stick with the two presidential nominees. Commentators spend ample time debating over which of the two men is the true anti-special interests crusader, while each campaign vociferously attacks the other for having uncomfortably close ties to one lobbying group or another.

Senator Obama has attempted to promote this image even further by refusing campaign donations from registered Political Action Committees and Washington lobbyists. This claim has become a centerpiece of the Obama campaign and has allowed his image as a reformer to take hold with many independent voters.

However, not all of us are easily misled by political rhetoric, Senator Obama. Even early on in his campaign, in 2007, Lissa August of the St. Petersburg Times pointed out that Obama's claim that he refuses campaign contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists was only true in the strictest sense of the phrase. His campaign pledges to refuse donations specifically from registered Washington lobbyists. This strict but subtle specification has created a loophole for the Obama campaign to fund his campaign through special interests, as Ms. August writes:

While railing against the "stranglehold that lobbyists and special interests have on our democracy," his campaign coffers are filled with money from people who work for corporations and law firms that lobby the federal government.

However, the difference between these corporations and law firms and the ones which Obama refuses funding from is:

Some power players are not registered lobbyists, but advise their clients on how to talk to federal officials about policy issues ... And the campaign accepts money from companies that are not classified as lobbying firms but have lobbying divisions ... Spouses of lobbyists also can give donations.

Even if Sens. Obama and McCain truly did not accept any donations from private interests, the fact of the matter is that both of them act on behalf of special interests on a daily basis -- it's the nature of the beast known as government. To try to fool the American people into believing that either one of them is a "pure" politician who acts solely on the behalf of the greater American good is exactly the sort of deceitful political gamesmanship that has gone on for the past century.

Furthermore, acting on behalf of special interests does not necessarily mean taking campaign contributions from lobbying groups or related private interests. Most, if not all, members of Congress act on behalf of special interests on a daily basis. More specifically, Congressmen regularly author and lobby for legislation that would potentially reap massive benefits for their respective constituency's interests (often at the expense of other constituencies).

For instance, Senator Obama represents the state of Illinois, which happens to be the country's second largest producer of corn. Not coincidentally, Obama has been an ardent supporter of corn ethanol subsidization. Despite the fact that evidence shows that ethanol subsidies do more harm than good while benefiting only a concentrated group of large corn producers, Obama claims that his support of the subsidy is not because of his constituency but because of his heartfelt concern for the American public.

However, if his concern truly lies with the greater American interest, why then has he staunchly supported a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imports of sugar cane ethanol? The Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol is not only more energy efficient but is also cheaper to produce than corn-based ethanol. The Obama campaign claims that this tariff policy is in the name of "energy independence," however, economic logic tells us that this glaring contradiction is because he is acting on behalf of "rent-seeking" ethanol producers and their associated unions who command a fair amount of political clout.

Ultimately, you can't be in favor of ethanol subsidies for the "good of the American public" while being strongly opposed to the importation of a better source of ethanol fuel, thus harming the American public by preventing its access to a cheaper and more efficient good. Such a glaring contradiction is surely not exclusive to Senator Obama. If you dug deep enough, you'd undoubtedly find similar behavior on the part of Senator McCain; perhaps involving benefits for Arizona's enormous copper industry or funding for the various immigration issues that plague the state?

Obama and McCain think they can fool the American voter with their double-talk about acting on behalf of special interests, but the reality is that it is nearly impossible to be a politician in our current system and not act on behalf of interest groups. Just because you don't explicitly accept donations from special interests doesn't mean you don't ever consider their political interests in your policymaking.