There are many political special interest groups who gain at the expense of the general public. The most infamous of these was the mohair subsidy, which persisted for several decades after the army switched to synthetic fibers and longer used its uniforms. For anyone who was not a mohair farmer, the subsidy was a waste of his money. Unfortunately, situations like this continue to exist. In fact, as perverse as it may sound, the fewer the number of people to benefit from such a policy, the more likely it is to persist. The expense per person among the majority is minimal, and so few people will vote against a politician for supporting the policy. Meanwhile, those who gain from such policies become major single-issue political donors, who give generously to any politician who will vote to continue the policy that so richly rewards them.

Now it is not enough to simply declare that a politician is beholden to a special interest group. All such interest groups have reasons of why helping them out is in the interest of the nation at large, and there are undoubtedly some politicians who truly support some special interest groups, and would do so even if they didn't receive campaign contribution from them.

It is frustrating though when you have two opposing politicians who would both love to repeal the law requiring a minimum price on a gallon of milk, yet each of them continues to support it so that his opponent won't have the exclusive support of the dairy industry.

The solution is a non-profit organization that will encourage special interest money disarmament. Each politician would be given a list of every conceivable special interest group. They can then privately submit the list of special interest groups they would be glad to ignore if their opponent would agree to do the same. Only if both the incumbent and his challenger agree to oppose a certain special interest group will the information be made public. It can then be possible for a politician to do the right thing and protect the majority without thereby giving funding to his opponent from a powerful minority.

Now when the next term comes around, the new challenger may be tempted to accept funds from the special interest group, which is out for revenge. It is then that the Special Interest Disarmament Organization (SIDO) could take out ads attacking the challenger. It will explain how both the incumbent and the previous challenger had agreed to forgo funding from this special interest group because they felt it was bad for their constituents. It will then say this new challenger is supporting the special interest group at the expense of the public, and is receiving generous campaign contributions as a result. The overall strategy will be to label him as especially corrupt for supporting a policy that both sides already agreed was bad for everyone. The fear of such an attack may diminish the odds of a new challenger taking advantage of an incumbent having disarmed the previous term.

It would be well worth exploring if such a concept is feasible. It would be a small step towards reforming a political system where special interests are becoming ever more powerful.

What do you think of this idea or comment?
(You can change your vote at any time)

I agree

No opinion

I disagree