We Get What They Pay For

July 24, 2015

During the 2014 election cycle, it was pretty obvious there were not many talented candidates running for office in northern Michigan. With the exception of Betsy Coffia, Wayne Schmidt, and Jerry Cannon, there was very little upon which to evaluate candidates. I met a couple of downstate reps from both parties who seemed to share the same traits of many of our northern Michigan gang. The common theme of little life experience, a substandard education (and in one case, no education at all), and a complete lack of vision marked so many candidates.

How did it come to this? I have long argued that democracies get the governments they deserve. But as you look at the folks who represent us, it’s impossible to wonder why we don’t deserve better.

One explanation is certainly term limits. When Newt Gingrich and his hypocrite cronies issued their "Contract on America" to make democracy tougher for all of us, term limits was one of their prized jewels. Republicans were having trouble getting elected, so they decided to limit democracy by limiting our choices on the ballot. The consequence has been disastrous across the board. Only people who can afford to give up a career for a possible 6 or 8 years in service can afford to run for office. So in many cases, instead of bright, successful people running, we get people in failed careers or people in their early 20s giving it a shot.

A quick look around northern Michigan confirms this observation. We currently have a person who spends most of his time searching for Amelia Earhart in the 104th, a person who seems proud of his lack of education in the 105th, a cottage landlord who lists no education on his bio in the 106th, and a young man who has never worked for anyone but his dad who was "educated" at Jerry Falwell’s poor excuse for a college in the 107th. This is not, and never will be, a Hall of Fame of legislators. But it’s not their fault; it’s our collective fault for choosing to send them to a job they are not prepared to do.

Why did we pick them? And since congressmen are not subject to term limits, how did we end up with Dan Benishek representing the First? A common complaint today about politics is the amount of money in the game. And it is a worthy complaint. Money and corruption have been a part of the American landscape since before the Revolution, and nothing is going to end that any time soon. What makes this period of history more disturbing is the amount of money in the system.

Businesspeople, interest groups, churches, etc. have long attempted to influence decision making in Washington and in Lansing. The game is pretty simple; donate money to a campaign and expect to be treated kindly in upcoming legislation. What isn’t a direct cash contribution takes the form of a job once the targeted politician is out of office. The Clintons and the Bushes are the most obvious examples of families who acquired great wealth as a consequence of serving us in government. Naïveté will not serve us here. This is our system and there are too many people with too big a stake to change anything any time soon.

But it was the infamous Citizens United case which raised the ante. Regulations on corporate donations prior to the Citizens United debacle put a hard cap on corruption. While donations helped fuel the system, their impact was potentially much smaller than today.

Now, with unlimited funds coming in from untraceable sources, those holding that money have a stronger hold on those who receive their donations. It does not make sense to find candidates with solid educations and useful work experience; these people cannot be trusted. They just might do the right thing when the donor needs them to do the opposite.

This is the key to the dismal state of talent in our legislature and in our Congress. Large donors need individuals who are easy to manipulate. Enter Messrs. Cole, Chatfield, and Benishek. I’m told that Dan Benishek’s first few months in office were so risky for his handlers that the Congressman was prohibited by his staff from meeting privately with individuals. His lack of awareness on issues and his poor grasp of his constituency forced him behind the scenes in his own district. So malleable is Dr. Benishek that his promise to serve at most three terms has been rescinded. It will be very hard to find someone with such accessible puppet strings, so Dr. Dan is going to try to hang around a little while longer.

In interviews done prior to his election in the 105th, Tristan Cole proudly denounced the educated as elitist. He claimed man-made climate change was a hoax. He claimed that there is no separation of church and state in our country. He basically spoke like someone who hadn’t read a good book in a very long time. And he was strangely proud of this.

I will give credit to Lee Chatfield. When we met prior to his election in the 107th, he admitted to having no agenda heading to Lansing. He wanted to get there and see how things worked. He definitely supported the right of landlords to deny leases to gay people, and he claimed not to know if it would be OK for a landlord to deny renting to a Jewish family if that landlord believed the Jews killed Jesus. This parochial world view is not the view of a well-educated man. And all of us are paying the price.

The more money that pours into our elections, the lower the quality of our candidates. As we get closer to the 2016 elections, we the people have an obligation to ignore the endless postcards, robo-calls, TV ads, and yard signs paid for on behalf of those whose seat is for sale. Instead we need to reward candidates with a vision for a better America and a better Michigan. Let me know if you see any brave enough to enter the race.

You can read more of Mark Pontoni’s thoughts on education, politics, sports, and family at www.thegrumblings.com.