Corruption in Politics
By: R. Joseph Fargo - 3/3/2004

I don’t know about you, but it really chaps my hide when our publicly elected officials thumb their noses at the will of the public that they profess to represent. While ”We, the People” may not always know what is best for ourselves, it is our will that these elected officials represent and not that of themselves or of special interest groups. If the public overwhelmingly asks for a law to be enacted, it is the duty of the elected official to uphold the will of the People.

This is not a new problem in politics, nor will it be resolved with the publishing of this article. It is, however, something that we as concerned citizens need to be focused on as we cast our votes in the upcoming November Election. Do not go to the polls this November and cast your vote based solely on party affiliation, but instead on the issues and the past performance of the politicians.

I know that doing your homework on the issues takes time and energy away from your ever busy schedule, but it is a must if we wish to end the levels of corruption that exist in the government today.

It is encumbered upon you and every other average man and woman to seek out those, regardless of party affiliation, that will represent the will and need of the people as a whole. It is absolutely unacceptable that public offices be filled with those who allow their votes to be swayed by large financial contributions from special interest groups.

Let me give you some examples of the lopsided misrepresentation of which I speak. Now, it is no secret that I am an avid supporter of the second amendment. It shall come as no shock to find out that I oppose all new gun laws that are aimed at the law abiding gun owner while not doing anything to ensure the safety of the public. In other articles, I have shown examples where very restrictive gun laws have only affected law-abiding gun owners, thus resulting in a higher number of gun related crimes. Conversely, in states where gun ownership and carry laws have been enacted to favor the lawful ownership of guns, the result is a sharp reduction in gun related crimes. The statement “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” not only holds true, but also empowers the law breaker to conduct his illegal activities without concern of resistance or prosecution. This being a statistical fact, why are our politicians still burdening us with laws that restrict the law abiding and yet do nothing to prevent crime or promote public safety? The reason is simple, the money from anti-gun groups talks louder than right over wrong.

To hear the politicians talk, there is no right or wrong, only shades of gray. To this I am reminded of the words of Isaiah 5:20, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Most people understand that there is a right and a wrong to almost everything; those so-called areas of gray are actually few and far between. Take murder, for instance. It is either right or it is wrong; there are no areas of gray here, yet politicians would have you believe that if someone kills someone else with a gun it is a far worse crime than if that same person bludgeoned his/her victim to death with a club. Now, I don’t know about anyone else, but for me I would rather be shot to death than beaten to death. At least a single bullet to the head would be quicker and less painful than being hit repeatedly with a club. Stealing is another example of where lawmakers split hairs. According to the laws of most states, stealing must be classified based on the value of that which was stolen rather than focusing on the fact that something was stolen. Each state has differing laws concerning petty-larceny versus grand-larceny with petty-larceny being punished as a misdemeanor and grand-larceny being punished as a felony. In California, it is based on an arbitrarily set monetary amount. If the value is under, say, $1,000, it is classified as petty-larceny, above, and it is grand-larceny. This would imply that as long as the criminal never steals anything of substance, regardless of the repetitive nature of his/her crimes, the criminal is not as bad as the person that on a single occasion steals a ring valued at $2,000.

The criminal justice system is an easy target, since there are so many things that need to be corrected to have it run properly (but that is another article.) Our politicians do not stop at corrupting our justice system; they also pad their pockets through governmental contracts and the like.

Am I the only person that gets steamed every time I read the news and find that Washington is raiding the Social Security Fund to pay for some other special project that the politicians are interested in? Personally, I would be in favor of throwing all politicians out on their ears and electing a whole new bunch to represent us. I would then pass a law that restricted the number of years that any individual could serve as a politician. This would guarantee that all elected officials would have to return to the private sector and suffer with the rest of us for the bad decisions they made in office.

There are a couple of things that I believe we could do to improve things in the relative short term. These are:

Let me talk a little more about this last bullet point for just a minute. February 2004 has seen several cities in the United States offer civil marriages to homosexual partners. (I use this as an example of corrupt officials only because it is a very public issue today.) One of the most public of these is in San Francisco, where, in February, Mayor Newsom empowered over three thousand couples to be married within the city limits (http://www.nclrights.org/releases/newsom021104.htm.) Regardless of your views on gay nuptials, I see a problem with what Mayor Newsom is doing. Not on moral grounds, but on legal grounds. In 2000, Californians overwhelmingly passed proposition 22, limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Mayor Newsom insists that he is acting within the law. He maintains that he is merely upholding the equal protection rights guaranteed by the California Constitution. What he fails to recognize is that in so doing, he is breaking another California law.

Now, I will probably be labeled a homophobe for writing this, which is completely untrue (why is it that people think there is something wrong with the person who sees evil for what it is, rather than seeing the wrong in the evil doers), however, it is my position that Mayor Newsom, as well as all other mayors and city officials that follow his example, should be removed from office and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for thumbing their noses at the laws of the land. If Mayor Newsom wanted to champion this cause, he should have taken a legal route, such as challenging prop 22 on constitutional grounds in the California court system. I have a cousin that applauds Mayor Newsom’s actions as civil disobedience and for moving the cause of gay unions forward, but he completely fails to acknowledge the criminality of this act.

No public official should act above or be above the law, no matter what the cause they are championing at the time. Criminal defiance is criminal defiance and not something that should be applauded simply because we agree with the cause. If Mayor Newsom declared hunting to be legal in Golden-Gate Park, it would not change the fact that it would be breaking state laws and is not the right thing to do. Furthermore, when public officials show contempt for the law, it justifies the average person in doing the same. This is not the example that we should accept from those who represent us in government. It is one thing for an average citizen to perpetrate an act of civil disobedience to raise awareness of an issue or law that they consider unfair, but it is an altogether different issue when those sworn to uphold that same law do it!

The founding fathers of this great United States of America knew that it was imperative for the proper checks and balances to be in place and working properly else the government would cease to serve the people that it was designed to protect. It is these checks and balances that we, the public, must maintain and uphold through our legally elected officials. It is for this reason that I urge everyone to put aside their own personal agenda and follow the admonition of President Kennedy who said “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Our government exists to serve the greater good of the community, not to serve my individual interests or yours. It is for this reason that we must elect politicians that support this ideology and will not bow down to the special interest groups. This is what we can do for our country!