Judicial ReEngineering

Politics in the United States is dominated in many ways by political campaign contributions
Candidates are often not considered "credible" unless they have a campaign budget far beyond
what could reasonably be raised from citizens of ordinary means. The impact of this money can
be found in many places, most notably in studies of how campaign contributions affect
legislative behavior. For example, the price of sugar in the United States has been roughly
double the international price for over half a century. In the 1980s, this added $3 billion to the
annual budget of U.S. consumers, according to Stern, who provided the following summary of
one part of how this happens:
Contributions from the sugar lobby,
1983–1986
Percent voting in 1985 against gradually reducing
sugar subsidies
> $5,000 100%
$2,500–5,000 97%
$1,000–2,500 68%
$1–1,000 45%
$0 20%
This $3 billion translates into $41 per household per year. This is in essence a tax collected by a
nongovernmental agency: It is a cost imposed on consumers by governmental decisions, but
never considered in any of the standard data on tax collections.
Stern notes that sugar interests contributed $2.6 million to political campaigns, representing well
over $1,000 return for each $1 contributed to political campaigns. This, however, does not
include the cost of lobbying. Lessig cites six different studies that consider the cost of lobbying
with campaign contributions on a variety of issues considered in Washington, D.C. These studies
produced estimates of the anticipated return on each $1 invested in lobbying and political
campaigns that ranged from $6 to $220. Lessig notes that clients who pay tens of millions of
dollars to lobbyists typically receive billions.
Lessig insists that this does not mean that any legislator has sold his or her vote. One of several
possible explanations Lessig gives for this phenomenon is that the money helped elect candidates
more supportive of the issues pushed by the big money spent on lobbying and political
campaigns. He notes that if any money perverts democracy, it is the large contributions beyond
the budgets of citizens of ordinary means; small contributions from common citizens have long
been considered supporting of democracy.
When such large sums become virtually essential to a politician's future, it generates a
substantive conflict of interest contributing to a fairly well documented distortion on the nation's
priorities and policies.
Beyond this, governmental officials, whether elected or not, often leave public service to work
for companies affected by legislation they helped enact or companies they used to regulate or
companies affected by legislation they helped enact. This practice is called the "revolving door".
Former legislators and regulators are accused of (a) using inside information for their new
employers or (b) compromising laws and regulations in hopes of securing lucrative employment
Page 93 of 115