Explaining Norman Hsu, Ted Stevens and John Doolittle

The current controversy about Norman Hsu is evocative of an earlier one that hit the Clinton political organization when Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie and Johnny Chung and a Buddist monk offered the Clintons and Gore a raft of shady money. But thinking that the problem is limited to the Clintons would be short sighted. I am bothered by the string of links that the Clinton machine has to shady fundraisers but I am more bothered by the way that we use consultants in the political process.

A good deal of those problems (from Clinton's to Stevens to John Doolittle) relate to how much reliance we have developed on the federal government. Got an issue? - get the feds to become involved. Want someone else to solve your problems? Get the feds involved. One of the funniest mails I have gotten in the last several years was from Mr. Doolittle (whose major achievement in his entire political career seems to have been raising money) when he offered support for term limits but of course worked hard against enacting them for members of congress.

Politics attracts some people who simply want to get close to power (that may or may not be Hsu's motivation). But in recent years we have created an industry where a politician like Doolittle can claim it is OK to take 15% off the top of every campaign contribution. Or where a politician like Stevens can assume that it is ok for some buddies to provide expensive repairs to his house (with no "strings" attached). Or where you can have successive generations of the Clinton dynasty skating on the edge of ethics in taking dough from such questionable figures like Trie or Hsu. The consultants look at political issues or campaigns as so much rent. It is not inconceivable to me that some of them worked hard to make the campaign finance laws so complicated so they could continue to advise politicians and take their spread.