Covering the Politicians who are Henhouse Foxes

Political leaders who have dual roles or hidden agendas

Political leaders run campaigns that must do two things: raise money from donors and motivate people to vote for them. As simple as this sounds, it is the clash between these two goals that can often create dual roles and hidden agendas. Interest groups and corporations often do not donate money unless they feel they will get a return through favorable legislation. Thus our system which is primarily built on private funding of campaigns has a tragic flaw in that it can breed back room or wink-wink deal making and unwritten rules. In some cases the relationships run even deeper, such as when a politician owes his or her popularity to work done in or for a certain industry, and when she or he maintains close relationships in that industry that can bias later decision-making.

Nowhere is the corrupting effect of campaign money more plain than on the committees where the congressional leaders sit. For example, it is nearly impossible for the democrats and the republicans to nominate people to bipartisan committees right now because their members often cannot help but have dual roles. An exaggerated but true example involved the appointment of Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington State, on the deficit supercommittee in the fall of 2011. Ms. Murray is the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (known as the DSCC), where her highly important job is to raise money to win back Republican Senate seats and preserve those senate seats currently held by Democrats. Our major concern was that this role would conflict with her ability to compromise and negotiate in good faith with Republicans if it meant going against those ideals and issues that are being used to raise money from democratic donors. Put differently, could she really be in charge of attracting money from donors who may be against the proposals put forth by republicans on the committee? In Ms. Murray’s defense, it could be argued that what the American public wants most of all is for the committee to be successful, and if she played a pivotal role in this success that in itself could lead to increased donations even if she compromised to do so. However, at Foxes in the Henhouse our concern is always about potential biases and conflicts, and when the committe failed, so did the defense! This is just one example of why bipartisanship continues to fail in Washington.

Another example of how political leaders face dual roles and secret agendas has to do with how our leaders approach voting decisions on individual bills in congress. First let us say that we applaud those leaders who openly and transparently compromise with members of their own or the other political party in order to get laws passed or other aspects of their important work done. For example, a lawmaker may be against a certain bill but will agree to vote for it in order to show that s/he is someone who is willing to compromise and look beyond a hyperpartisan stance in order to do what is best for his or her constituents in the long run. In this case we’d expect that politician to come clean with those who voted for him or her about why s/he voted that way, and why the net effect will be positive.

More often, however, there are some “foxes in the henhouse” type problems. Sometimes a political leader will vote for a certain bill not because s/he is trying to gain support for another bill that will create a net positive result for his or her constituents, but because it will lead to he or she gaining favor from lobbyists or rich donors, or because people will not be aware of the first vote but the second vote will be more widely publicized, or because s/he feels he can sweep the fact of the first bill under the rug while the second vote is closer to the election date. In these cases the politician is not voting out of ethics, a spirit of political compromise, or a look at what is the best net result for his or her constituents. We saw some of these problems in two major votes in 2011, and on both sides of the political aisle. When Democrats were looking for the final votes to get Health Care Reform passed, we saw lobbyists, donors, and democratic party operators all join in to use all methods of coercion to get congressional support for the bill. This include some degree of fair compromise, and also too much of what is described above. Republicans are not off the hook. We saw the same behavior when some in the GOP were concerned about either the cost or the degree of tax cuts for higher income brackets in the original Bush tax cuts.

Sometimes issues that could be debated in a straightforward way, and in many cases begin with open and honest debate, end up with foxes in the henhouse problems because each side tries too desperately to win the upper hand. The debate over government regulations provides one such example. Republicans say that the democrats in power have put too many regulations in place, and that these regulations have stifled business growth. Democrats say that these regulations are necessary and that big business has proven in the past the the drive for corporate profit has led to harm to the environment, to consumers, and to other businesses so some regulation is necessary. Of course, here at Foxes in the Henhouse we are not going to debate the issue of regulation reform. The most we will say, perhaps offending both liberals and conservatives at the same time, is that the truth may be in between and there may be too many regulations but the proposals to cut down on them go too far because many are necessary. Where does that leave us here at Foxes? We are concerned that in a poor financial climate, when the public is nervous about the economy and business growth, that business finds an opportunity to tap into this anxiety to use exaggeration and manipulation to fight against necessary regulations.

The debate about regulation reform, from both democrats and republicans, should be open and honest and free of exaggeration, omission, and lies. If regulations are hurting business, the real effects on employment and growth should be explored, but then both liberals and conservatives should also honestly debate the pros of the regulations too – what do they protect and why are they in place? That way the public can hear these political leaders and decide where they stand. Instead our system seems to allow business to lobby and put money into PR campaigns against regulations in a way that could merely be tapping into voter anxiety about the economy, with the hidden agenda of rolling back necessary regulations. Democrats and liberals, for their part, should be careful not to do just the opposite when the economy improves a bit – placating their own industries who benefit from regulations by putting them in place.

On our Latest News page, we will cover this topic in more detail, including times when political leaders show evidence of dual roles, hidden agendas, and secret loyalties.

Politicians with Secret Loyalties