Ralph Reed is First Electoral Victim of Jack Abramoff

Ralph Reed lost his bid to become the Republican candidate in Georgia for the job of Lieutenant Governor in Tuesday's primary. GOP voters decided the founder of the Christian Coalition had gotten a little too close to felon and ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff for their liking. Casey Cagle, state senator from Hall County, beat Mr. Reed by 20 percentage points. Not only does this finish Mr. Reed off as a candidate, but also it means corruption could play a big part in November’s elections.

One is grossly tempted to revel in Mr. Reed’s loss. His oleaginous public persona and holier-than-thou approach to politics has destroyed much of the civility in Washington that used to allow President Reagan and Speaker O’Neill to get things done (and to sing Irish songs together around a piano after slamming each other politically all day long). He is, of course, not alone in this. Much of the religious right bears the blame. It is difficult to be bipartisan if God backs one of the parties in question – who backs the other side? His defeat could mean a chance to take some of the poison out of the way Americans speak to one another about politics.

Even if that doesn’t happen, the Abramoff Effect was significant here, and it foreshadows a potential rejection of the money-politics, and money-politicians, who have been most obvious in the last several years. This largely affects the Republican Party (consider for a moment the value of bribing the opposition), but there are the cases of Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) and Alan Mollohan (D-WV) on the other side of the aisle. Democratic partisans may bemoan these two as undermining the November campaign against the much more corrupt GOP (as they see it). However, since both parties appear to have corruption problems, at least in their public images, both are on the hook for fixing the bigger problem of money excessively influencing politics.

Only the most naïve of observers could think that the removal of all monetary influence from politics is possible, or even desirable. There is something to be said for citizens investing their hard-earned money in a political debate -- putting democracy’s money where democracy’s mouth is. Where that goes awry is when it is plutocrats’ money. Government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich is not what any nation should suffer. Finding the balance between democracy’s money and money’s money in campaigns is very difficult, and the target moves over time.

Mr. Reed’s defeat serves to put all elected officials (or would-be elected officials) on notice that influence peddling and raising money for political debate are two different things, related unfortunately, but distinct. If that means an electoral revolution in November, so be it. The current funding rules are certainly open for discussion and reform. What is not open for debate is whether the public office should serve private interests for a price. Mr. Reed doesn’t appear to have committed a crime, but he was awfully close to someone who has. From that, one may conclude his judgment is insufficiently strong to serve, and he is not the only one, merely the first to suffer for it.

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home