Money for Something - the original sin of politics

[BridgeTheGap]

Money for Something - By DAVE EGGERS - Op-Ed - New York Times

Not too long ago, having donated to Barack Obama’s campaign, I was at a fund-raising event for him at an astoundingly beautiful house in the Oakland hills. It was attended by a perfect cross section of the Bay Area’s well-known progressives: a journalism professor from Berkeley chatting on the veranda; a member of the band Green Day loitering near the breadsticks. From the wisteria-strangled steps, Mr. Obama gave a loose and affable speech and then took questions, answering them all with great detail and a certain refreshing lack of polish.

Afterward, I found myself with a few donor-friends in an antechamber designated for photos with the candidate. We all felt sort of out of place, like vegetarians at a Texas barbecue, but a voice in the room soon brightened the mood. Who is that? we wondered. The accent was thick, Brooklyn-based, maddeningly familiar. Another man in line figured it out. You’re George Zimmer! he said. It was George Zimmer, he of the suits and near-constant ads on the radio. When his turn came, Mr. Obama was equally entertained. It’s you! he said, and his face exploded into that incomparable smile. And with that, the founder of Men’s Wearhouse bought himself a $2,300 photo.

This is, though, the original sin of politics: that once born into such a life, one has already sold and will always be required to sell (and usually for a depressingly small price) bits of him or herself, just about every day for the rest of one’s time seeking election and serving in office. We complain about politicians being salesmen, and we wonder why so many end up in trouble or even jail — with the former governor of Illinois, George Ryan, reporting to prison just last month.

When one of them is convicted, it’s usually for accepting too much money, or taking money from the wrong people, or in the wrong ways or at the wrong times. But of course, as a society we’ve created the problem, we’ve nurtured the addiction. Through a foggy and strained interpretation of the First Amendment, we have accepted that money is free speech, and that a candidate’s viability is measured first and foremost by his or her ability to get people to write checks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/opinion/09eggers.html

[groovedaddy]

1. Strange that this article starts off talking about Ron Paul

But the contention of the article is valid.