Should the Donations of Lobbyists Be Shunned?

Hillary Clinton has been quite bold in defending her decision to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. She has flatly stated that campaign contributions do not influence her political stances, but at the same time she also believes that lobbyists have a right to make those contributions regardless of their intentions. Ultimately, campaign finance issues are really all about trust: are elected officials trustworthy enough to treat all contributions as donations rather than bribes, even when they know their behavior in office will influence the future contributions they receive? Is it better for politicians to reject contributions from those with ulterior motives in order to avoid the appearance of evil or for them to attempt to establish their honesty in some other way?

Fundamental to this issue is the nature of the privately financed American political campaign. While politicians need votes to assume office, they often just as desperately require money, for it is money that is the fuel that will power their campaigns from start to finish. Hillary Clinton's point of view is pragmatic: since politics costs money, let politicians accept contributions from various sources but not allow themselves to be influenced by the donors of that money. I don't think it requires a superhuman set of ethics to be a politician that acts that way, but because money is so vital a part of the political process temptations will always be around to entice politicians great and small. To remove lobbyists from the political money race could remove the number of those temptations...but campaign coffers will be significantly less full as a result.

Another question relevant to this discussion is whether or not lobbyists play a worthwhile role in politics. Hillary Clinton, who says that lobbyists sometimes do represent the views of a significant number of "ordinary Americans," is probably closer to the truth than is John Edwards, who seems to view lobbyists as coming from another planet (OK, maybe just another America). The Lobbying Spending Database shows that huge companies like General Electric as well as organizations like AARP spend significant amounts of money on lobbying. There really is a wide variety in the interests which lobbyists represent; the ordinary Americans that Edwards champions are represented to an extent by lobbyists. On the other hand, lobbying also provides a way for wealthy individuals and corporations to attempt to use their wealth to influence politics in ways that may not be beneficial for the country as a whole.

Personally, if I were running for office I probably would accept contributions from lobbyists. To me, that would be part of running a fiscally responsible campaign; of course, ignoring their attempts to influence policy would be part of being a responsible representative. I would have to live with the consequences of this decision: namely, people might trust me less because they would assume me to be beholden to special interests. All things considered, I certainly can't fault Edwards for taking the moral high ground on this issue; he obviously feels that he can afford to campaign without lobbyist aid. However, I also won't automatically distrust a candidate who accepts lobbyist contributions simply because I know politics is expensive. This whole debate makes me ponder the wisdom of having publicly financed campaigns; they would be a government money pit, but excessive campaign spending might be tempered and more honesty in politics might be encouraged as a result.