Government should be for the people

Hearing Hillary Clinton say recently that corporate lobbyists “represent real Americans” helped me realize I’m not too excited about the current slate of presidential candidates, primarily because I’m skeptical of a system over which Corporate America has too much influence.

The fact that the favorite to win the White House in 2008 doesn’t understand that lobbyists don’t represent the average American proves we have a big problem. I’m not convinced that any of the candidates who are above the margin of error in the polls – Democrat or Republican – would bring about real change in a system that has been corrupted by corporate money.

Without serious ethics reform, policy debates on Iraq, health care, energy independence and all other issues will continue to be too heavily influenced by corporations whose only interest is financial gain. The result is always a compromise between what’s good for the richest of the rich and what’s good for the rest of us.

The American people know this, and the resulting cynicism is a primary cause of public apathy.

Many Americans find the Democratic presidential candidates refreshing because they offer short-term change, particularly on Iraq and health care. The problem with the GOP candidates is a familiar one: They’re all wealthy white men.

But neither group is adequately discussing the core issue that taints all other policy debates in Washington. Perhaps that’s because the major presidential candidates – including our governor – are themselves millionaires, or perhaps it’s because they need the money of the wealthy to win elections.

Among those who have a shot at winning, the only presidential candidate who has attempted to address this problem in any meaningful manner is Barack Obama. He was the spokesman for the recently approved campaign in the Senate to reduce lobbyist influence in Washington, a bill President Bush is now considering vetoing. When he began pushing for that legislation, Obama set the example by giving up flights on corporate jets.

Obama, like John Edwards, doesn’t take lobbyist money. However, both take money from other corporate interests. Is either really a candidate of change, as both proclaim?

What about Bill Richardson’s push for ethics reform in New Mexico? Consider this: He pushed last year for limits on campaign contributions while accepting hundreds of donations that would have violated his proposed limits. Contrast that with Obama’s decision to set the example on lobbyist reform.

In addition, many of Richardson’s campaign contributors have been given lucrative state contracts.

I don’t care if a candidate disagrees with me on policy issues. I care about whether he or she is someone who leads by example and with integrity.

Our system of government is designed so that opposing sides come together to debate gray areas and find compromise. If we could fill the Congress and White House with ethical leaders who weren’t overly influenced by corporate money, if we could have policy debates based on what’s best for the American people instead of corporations, then we would find real solutions to America’s pressing issues.

That’s going to take serious, systemic reform. I’m looking for the candidate who will lead America to that future.

A version of this article was published today in the Albuquerque Tribune. I write a column for the newspaper that runs on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month.