Making Reform From the Abramoff Scandal

The American system of pay-to-play governance has been thrown into a moment of turmoil by the perverse greed of Jack Abramoff and the lobbying network in which he played the ringmaster. This is a window of opportunity to talk about political reform. But, as citizens, we face three hazards: demanding too much, settling for too little and leaving the whole thing to the two dominant parties to deal with.

Without a grass-roots effort putting heat on congressional members from their districts, the scandal may very well fade into pseudo-reform.

What's needed is a one-two punch: Graphically lay bare the infection of corruption among the current crop in Washington, while calling for realistic changes to the system itself.

Some will argue that pushing the Democrats' electoral advantage is all that matters. It's better to run against a corrupt party, they'll say, than it is to make repairs to a broken system. But by pushing the Democrats to call for political change that is at once focused and pragmatic -- and is also far more than the Republicans could ever accept, the grassroots can take the initiative.

The fact that we won't see Tom DeLay back at the helm as House majority leader suggests that even the rank and file in the GOP are wary of the impact of corruption's taint in the 2006 election. Conventional wisdom is that it is nearly impossible to swing the Congress given how gerrymandered the seats are to protect both parties. But every once in a while, as happened in the Gingrich-led sweep of Congress in 1994, the conventional wisdom can be stood on its head, and the Republicans are nervous.

This tale of corruption reflects just how much the federal government is creaking along on outdated 18th-century gears. Yet it is not going to be easy to move an agenda calling for a complete overhaul.

The public has historically strong support for campaign finance reform, and there is strong support for changing our lobbying system. But reform can take one of two courses. The 1970s Cointelpro scandal, for example, led to a fundamental re-examination and reworking of the laws that govern intelligence gathering in the U.S. The other course is that of placebo reform. Despite all the smoke and fury around the Enron and WorldCom scandals, they resulted in only one good but narrowly focused piece of legislation, Sarbanes-Oxley, which basically addressed one element of business corruption, double accounting standards. And ever since it passed, the business community has been chipping away at it systematically.

If progressive groups and concerned citizens don't get engaged and express their outrage, the Abramoff investigation may well become just another forgotten scandal. In pressing that case, grass-roots activists should keep in mind that the Democratic establishment needs the base on this issue. Some fresh opinion research by DriveDemocracy, a Texas-based progressive group, found that:

… where coverage and personal conversation have been intense (West Austin Republican-leaning suburbs, DeLay's district near Houston) embarrassed and shamed moderate voters are fleeing the GOP and considering Democrats for the first time in years. But in other areas of the state, where coverage, conversation and grassroots activity have been less extensive, voters are clinging more tightly to the legs of their abusive GOP daddies. GOP numbers are actually going up.

Both parties are jockeying for position, trying to become the "party of reform." If the Democrats have a broad reform movement behind them, they'll win the day. But that movement can only coalesce behind demands for substantive change. And if left alone to do it, we will get thin gruel indeed. Rahm Emanuel, the man charged with overseeing the Democratic takeover of the House in 2006, has given lip service to the notion that Democrats will be the party of "change," without elaborating quite what he means.