The Chicken or the Egg

The impact of how campaigns are financed on governing is an enormous question in politics right now. Some democrats like Senator Bernie Sanders condemn the Citizens United legislation of 2010, which worked to deregulate the campaign finance sector. However, many Republicans reject these criticisms claiming that money—giving it—is a form of political free speech and certainly should not be regulated. Nonetheless, there are rumors that circulate that these sort of beliefs are not due to a true devotion to free speech, but rather to an understanding that money helps to win elections, and that corporate business and industry interests are more likely to donate to Republican Campaigns. Regardless, it takes a close analysis of how money affects governing—through examining a single politician’s campaign finance record and how that record compares with their voting record and bill sponsorship record. For this analysis, I would like to focus on my own home Congressman—PA District 8, Mike Fitzpatrick, Republican.

Mike Fitzpatrick is a fairly well-liked guy in my area. He is known for his initiatives that have a deep connection to helping members of his home district, including his Better Jobs, More Opportunities program, his annual PA-8 small business boot camp, and career fair. He has the reputation of gracefully infusing his moderate republican beliefs into his community work—often doing work that relates to the creation of jobs and the stabilization of business.

It is unsurprising, then, to see that many of his sponsored and co-sponsored bills have similar sort of republican-friendly or community-building themes. Among them is the Hire Just One Act, involving the creation of a claimed 3-4 million American jobs. Many of his other sponsored bills are very community oriented— the Breast Cancer Recovery Improvement Act, the Shield Act (which protects important electrical grids from compromise), the Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act, as well as bills that sponsor changes to veteran burial services or that reauthorize local areas as National Heritage Areas. He also sponsors several bills that are generally pleasing to most Americans—such as the Strengthening Background Checks Act, which strengthens background checks with regard to acquiring firearms. He also co-sponsors more extremist Republican bills such as the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which prohibits government funds from being given to any health care provider that administers abortions, even if the money is used for other purposes. In short, his bill sponsorship and co-sponsorship record reveals that Fitzpatrick is fairly adept at towing the party/community line. He acknowledges that the partisan make up of his district, although decidedly Republican in the last decade, is not strongly so. There are still large portions of his constituents who are more leftward leaning and he creates initiatives that—although often have a conservative flair, if you will—still work to help all members of his constituency.

So what does all this have to do with Campaign finance?

Fitzpatrick’s top contributor is a perfect summary of his political being: the Votesane Pac. The Votesane Pac, although contributing more to Republican Candidates, still donates to a large quantity of Democratic candidates. In fact, among the top 5 receivers of Votesane Pac funds are two Democrats. Coming in second, is a locally based but nationally recognized aircraft, missel, and aero-space, technology producer, Teletronics Technology. This too, is representative of his republican Military interests and his community based support. Following Teletronics is the Comcast Corporation, Cowhey Family Supermarket, and Cozen O’Connor, an international law firm with a prominent focus on corporate law. Comcast Corporation is representative of his corporate interests. The Cowhey Family Supermarket is locally owned small business who most likely is supportive of Fitzpatrick’s consistent support of community business. Cozen O’Connor is a largely corporate international law firm that is unsupportive of environmental reform, according to many of their cases. This lack of support for environmental causes canbe seen in Fitzpatrick’s voting record—he voted for the Keystone Pipeline, and against an energy solution initiative.

However, I think the most prominent question becomes—in examining the links between campaign finance and governing—was it the chicken or the egg? Did Fitzpatrick get donations from Comcast because he would support corporate interests, or because he already does? Did Cowhey Supermarket donate to Fitzpatrick in the hope that he would continue his community efforts, or knowing that he would?

I think it is possible to assert that campaign finance does not affect governing in the ways that people often assert that it does. I do not think where a congressman’s donations come from affects what they vote for and what bills they sponsor. Rather, I think that PACs and corporations and businesses and firms donate to candidates not bargaining and bribing for a vote, but knowing that if these candidates are elected, they will receive one, knowing that the interests of the politician and the donor are already ideologically tied. However—much like the chicken and the egg—it is impossible to prove that this is true. Thus, it is the implications of this system that become truly important.

Thus, I think the true issue behind campaign finance is that the American people perceive that it affects how politicians behave and this decreases their trust in the American government. It makes people believe that their vote is worth less than a check, that the system is run by money instead of democracy. As such, I think that campaign finance reform is necessary mainly to restore the trust of the American people in American democracy.