Yes, of course it is.... how can it not be?

...................................................................................................................................................................
Is buying political influence corrupt?
April 2, 2014

Look out. We're in for a rough ride. Promoting a clean, fair election system just got harder. The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision Wednesday on campaign-finance rules is bound to turn our system upside down.

While conservatives are proclaiming the ruling in McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission as a victory for the First Amendment and liberals are warning it means the imminent takeover of democracy by the billionaire Koch brothers, the country is left with a system that is barely working and likely will become even more dysfunctional.

The McCutcheon decision ruled that current caps on the total amount of federal election donations were unconstitutional. It is seen as a companion decision to the 2010 Citizens United ruling that allowed unlimited corporate spending. For the time being, limits to individual federal candidates are still in effect. But a number of observers predict it is only a matter of time before they are challenged as well.

The Wednesday decision was along ideological lines. The court's conservatives voted for it. The liberals voted against it. This battle will continue in the court, in Congress and in living rooms across the country. At bottom, our society is still trying to figure out how our election system should work.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority decision, said the government's interest is in preventing corruption, but that does not prevent the individual's right to give money to as many candidates as he wants. That, of course, sounds good. But his definition of corruption in politics was limited. A number of critics called it naive.

Apparently, the chief justice sees corruption in politics as merely a quid pro quo arrangement: Something given for something in return. But we know that the people who run our political system and the people who seek their help are too smart for that.

If that were the way politicians worked, the problem would not be so challenging. Many of them would be caught. But actual quid pro quo exchanges are enormously hard to prove. The operators in our system are simply too smart for that.

However, these smart donors still give money to candidates, and they don't give it out of the goodness of their hearts. They expect something in return. Remember, they didn't get all that money by accident. They are buying access. They get face time. They get phone calls returned.

That is the way power operates. It is part of human nature. However, even if we can't eliminate it, we should be able to do something about limiting it.

We now have a system where corporations and unions can pour unlimited amounts of money into an election. They can anonymously put money in campaign funds that promote an issue as long as it does not specifically endorse a candidate. These vehicles can be destructive of our democracy and our election system.

If that is not a form of corruption, what is?
...................................................................................................................................................................