Not All Politicians are Corrupt, but All Are Willing to Look the Other Way

This is an astonishing number. It's more than two-thirds of the Republican registration, and just a little under half of Democratic registration. Meanwhile, our colleague Greg Nelson asks the following question: Why don't the clean money people use examples like Yee and Calderon to push their case for public financing of campaigns? I think I have an answer, although it is a little unsettling to contemplate. 

At one time, shortly after I moved back to California in the late 1980s, I was active in the local Democratic Party ranks. Like another CityWatch writer, I too attended state conventions. Like many of my colleagues, I tried to push for policies intended to protect the coastline and the desert. I have a lot of respect for the people who have stayed to fight the righteous fight, in good years and bad, but eventually I found it a little too uncomfortable to stay. 

Let me give a couple of examples that led to my unease. At the time I was becoming active in the local Democratic Party club, there were Democratic office holders whose misconduct was becoming well known. One was Paul Carpenter, at the time a member of the Board of Equalization, and previously a member of the State Senate. He lived one town over from me, and was known to the local activists. He was a crook, and this didn't seem to be much of a secret. There was another elected office holder by the name of Sen. Joe Montoya. He was also a crook, and this too seemed to be a matter of general understanding. And of course there was Sen. Alan Robbins, from the valley, another crook. 

I would guess that most of us didn't know the particular details of their misconduct, but were at least vaguely aware that they were known for making use of their positions for their own gain. Eventually they were indicted and convicted of serious crimes, and did time in prison. 

But what did the Democratic Party do about them while they were in office? More to the point, what kind of reception did the grassroots activist get for even raising the question of political reform? I think it's a fair enough question to ask, but I can remember when some highly ranked party official referred to my comments as naive. And that was just for suggesting that we needed to be open and upfront about demanding honesty from our candidates and elected officials. 

In short, the party apparatus made clear that the function of the party was to elect "good Democrats." If you tried to explore what that actually meant, it became clear that a Good Democrat is somebody who supports Democrats and works to get them elected. Period. End of Discussion. 

There wasn't much room for dissent in a system like that. Particularly when it came to discussions that aired the party's dirty laundry, it became clear that open mindedness was not acceptable. In an era where the state legislature was contested fairly closely, party leaders were not willing to take any chances on losing a seat just to uphold some mere principle of ethics. 

I think that the more sincere party leaders told themselves that maintaining control of the state legislature fit the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. They weren't in favor of corruption, but they knew that they had to look the other way if they were going to maintain services for the poor and uphold collective bargaining for public employees. 

Many of us understood the point, but were, nevertheless, extremely uncomfortable with it. 

I reregistered as an independent -- what the California registration form refers to as "Decline to State" -- and I've stuck with it ever since. It's cost me a few little things, mainly the opportunity to argue my points within the party apparatus, but on the balance, it's been a lot better for me to be able to call myself an independent and to make use of the privileges that this entails. 

What those privileges are is the crux of the matter, and the advantage that one voter feels for registering independent is not necessarily the same as for another. For me, it's probably best described as the liberty one feels from having and asserting intellectual freedom. I think that most Republicans and Democrats alike have some disagreement with a part of their party's platform, and as the need to express those differences becomes more important, many of those individuals take the opportunity of changing their registration to independent. 

It would appear that a strong one-fifth of California voters have some similar point of view. They may express it differently -- "they're all corrupt, those politicians" is a common sentiment -- but I think what we are all saying in our own way is that we are more comfortable being able to avoid declaring perfect and undying loyalty to what is, after all, just a political coalition. 

By the way, in its demand for loyalty, the Republican Party went way beyond the Democrats, even in those days. I once tried to go to a Republican Party candidates' debate at the Cerritos Public Library, and was asked to leave because I was not a registered Republican. When I tell that story to normal people, they look astonished. "Why wouldn't they want people to attend their debates?" 

The real world of politics continues in Sacramento, which brings us to Greg's question: Why don't the clean money activists make better use of political scandals such as the indictments of Calderon and Yee? At the risk of sounding a little cynical -- and believe me, this is not cynicism but experience -- I think the answer is obvious. 

The clean money movement understands that it has no chance whatsoever with Republicans. That's because the clean money movement is all about moving to full public funding of political campaigns. The Republicans once built a pretty formidable political system based on being able to outspend the opposition. It's in their bones. The fact that they are currently on the losing side of this battle in California may take another generation to sink in. 

So the clean money activists look the other way because the Democrats are, for the most part, what they have. The fact that this is a losing strategy has been lost on them so far. I mean, why should we expect the candidates who most benefit from the current system to want to change it? 

Both major parties seem to react to corruption within their ranks only when it becomes public scandal. The Democrats in the California State Senate have reacted minimally, by suspending the indicted and convicted senators. It would have made more sense for the state senate to expel them, or for all of them to resign. That would have made sense politically, and it would have sent the correct moral message.

(Bob Gelfand writes on politics and culture for City Watch. He can be reached at [email protected]) [

-cw

CityWatch

Vol 12 Issue 27

Pub: Apr 1, 2014