Campaign contributions blur vision for Michigan's future

Ever wonder why our political system seems unable to deal with big, long term problems? Why, instead, do our political debates always splinter off into arguments about the small stuff?

That’s something I’ve been thinking about and trying to figure out for years. I am convinced that part of the explanation has to do with the basic structure of our society. Beginning with Alexis De Tocqueville’s great early 19th century work, Democracy in America, commentators have observed that more than most nations, America is comprised of a myriad of interest groups – people gathered together in solidarity to promote their particular way of life.

Some of these groups are very big – organized labor and the business community. Some are small – apple growers and charter school advocates. But virtually every interest group comes together in the political arena to support its allies and fight off its opponents.

The way they often do that is through devices called Political Action Committees (PACs), which contribute money to like-minded candidates. No one knows exactly how many PACs there are in Michigan, but it must be thousands.

Some are rich and powerful: Our top 150 PACs raised $27.3 million in 2008, the Michigan Campaign Finance Network calculates.

What we do know is that for virtually every issue of public policy and government activity, there is a corresponding PAC – and very often several. Each PAC views the world only through the lens of its own particular interest. And the activities of all these PAC’s tend to divide our political discourse into tiny little segments.

Apart from how they affect individual issues, these political action committees have several effects on our society, all of them bad. PAC culture has helped magnify and justify the role of self-interest, and at the same time, sparks and encourage conflict.

Those aren’t things Michigan needs more of right now. This segmented culture has had a corrosive effect, especially when the overall interests of the state – revitalizing our economy, for instance – are at issue. It has become very hard for our politicians to come together in the common interest. To do that, it is necessary to first develop a shared vision of where we want to go in the long run and then work out a strategic action plan to get there.

But that’s become harder than ever, given the fact that PACs, vehicles which by definition divide our society, are now the source of most politicians’ campaign funding.

This is a problem that has been building for years. In Michigan, a state in desperate need of a shared vision for our long-term transformation, this has created a crisis of the greatest urgency.

Two current examples suggest people are beginning to notice:

An article in last week’s issue of the Lansing-based politics and policy newsletter MIRS (Michigan Information and Research Service) dealt with a bill to close failing schools. The advocates of the bill, Reps. Tim Melton (D-Auburn Hills) and Bert Johnson (D-Highland Park), “seem to be trying to do something that only rarely happens in the legislature – they’re trying to move measures that are opposed by both sides of an issue.” The problem here is that teachers’ unions worry that the bill will lead to expanded charter schools, while the charter school interests feel the bill doesn’t go far enough.

MIRS concludes, “Attempts to walk between vested interests don’t have a particularly good track record in terms of passage in the legislature. Finding the narrow path between opposing doctrines that leads to consensus tends to be very difficult.”

That’s been all too true. But today, an overwhelming majority of Michigan citizens say that turning around failing schools is essential to our future. The danger is that this shared vision is at risk of being stymied by conflicting interest groups and their PACs.

One encouraging example comes from Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Snyder, who last week challenged his four primary opponents to turn down campaign contributions from PACs and registered lobbyists. He argued that reducing the influence of interest groups would be good for government in Michigan.

“Time and time again, Michiganders feel elected officials break their promises and cannot be trusted because they owe their election support to special interests,” Snyder wrote.

Now, part of this may be self-serving, politically. Snyder is a successful Ann Arbor businessman. Maybe he can more easily afford to turn down PAC money than can his opponents. But his comments do a nice job at illustrating the public skepticism of a politics heavily influenced by special interest groups.

Attempts to develop a shared vision for Michigan’s best future are essential, if we are ever to develop a common ground agenda and action plan to transform and revitalize our economy. And to do that, we have to start by understanding how and why our politics get so splintered and our government becomes, in the end, so tragically ineffective.

***
Editor’s Note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics, and a former chairman of the Michigan chapter of the Nature Conservancy. He is also the founder and president of The Center for Michigan, a centrist think-and-do tank which publishes the Michigan Scorecard. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of The Center. He welcomes your comments at ppower@thecenterformichigan.net.