An easy solution to end lobbying

We are just days away from the most expensive election cycle in history. The Center for Responsive Politics predicts the price tag for the 2012 elections for federal offices will reach $6 billion — at least $700 million more than the next most expensive election.

Many voters are concerned about money’s influence on the political process, but these concerns are misdirected.

For me, the problem of money in politics is really just a symptom of a much more serious issue.

Let’s not forget why people are willing to spend so much money on lobbying and elections. It’s because they’re evil. Just kidding. It’s because the payoffs are amazing.

A study of lobbying leading up to the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act found that companies’ return averaged over $220 per $1 spent lobbying; that comes to about a 22,000 percent return on investment! This being the case, why wouldn’t you try to influence the outcome of elections and/or specific legislation?

Government — and in some cases individual office-holders — has the ability to grant special favors to individuals, groups or corporations.

Big tax breaks, carefully constructed regulations, government contracts and bailouts are defining characteristics of corporatism; they are not creating a fair and balanced economic environment.

This is a phenomenon known as rent-seeking, and it allows the largest organizations and corporations to maintain their power by “investing” in candidates or office-holders (often of both parties) with the expectation of an amazing return on investment — all at the expense of society and the taxpayer.

I’m of the belief that no matter what government tries to do to regulate money in politics, it will continue to flow somewhere, somehow.

Rent-seeking in Washington was a problem even before the recent controversial Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which brought corporations’ and unions’ political fundraising into the spotlight.

It’s naive to think money and politics will ever be fully divorced. Government’s actions are too important, and there’s too much to be gained by giving political contributions or lobbying.

Worst of all, the deck is stacked against those without significant financial resources such as students and small businesses. In order to lobby, an organization must already have money and resources at its disposal.

But don’t worry, I have a cure-all! We ought to take government’s ability to become an auctioneer away. If there is no money or favorable status to offer, there would be much less reason for lobbyists to lobby.

People tend to like big government so long as its power is being used in a way they approve of. I usually think, what would happen should the most detestable individual or group grab hold of the reigns? And thankfully, though he’s not great, the president isn’t quite a worst case scenario.

Thanks, Obama.