Speaking Freely: Washington Insiders Talk About Money in Politics

By Larry Makinson

Speaking Freely yanks readers from their living room couch and drops them into the plush offices of Washington insiders for frank, one-on-one conversations about the role of money in politics.... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0939715295
• ISBN13: 9780939715299
• Release Date: February 2003
• Publisher: Center for Responsive Politics
• Length: 154 Pages
• Weight: 0.60 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.5" x 6.0" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

Offers the reader an inside look as to what really happens

Now in an updated second edition, Speaking Freely: Washington Insiders Talk About Money In Politics by Larry Makinson (Center for Responsive Politics) offers the reader an inside look as to what really happens behind the closed doors of Washington offices. The candid testimony of PAC directors, current and former Congressmen, lobbyists, and other Washington insiders fill the pages of this no-nonsense, informative account that strips away illusions and shows the reader what power politics is really like. An informed and informative read for anyone with an interest in how government really works, Speaking Freely is commended to personal, professional, governmental, academic, and community library Political Science collections and reading lists.

Provides Strong Analysis, But Doesn't Make a Convincing Case

In "Speaking Freely," Larry Makinson advocates campaign finance reform by presenting testimony by those who best understand money's role in the political process - former members of Congress and those who successfully influence them. Unlike many other pro-McCain-Feingold authors, he does not restrict his evidence to the pro-reform side. Many of his experts clearly believe that people have a right to make their case to their leaders, and that restricting them from doing so will cause them to lose confidence in our government.Makinson begins with the simple point that incumbents enjoy a substantial fundraising advantage over challengers because congressional district lines are frequently drawn to keep seats in the hands of the controlling party. This leads him to conclude that campaign contributors typically expect access in return for their donations. As a result, in most major elections, the ideas that a candidate brings to the table are less important than her fundraising potential. Ideas are frequently overshadowed by the attack ads that plague congressional elections.To further illustrate problems caused by the current system, Makinson uses the example of agricultural subsidies - and that fact that support for such blatantly special-interest programs transcends party lines, geographical regions, and political philosophies. However, he also points out that many interest groups tend to wait for most new members of Congress to develop a voting record before deciding whether to offer them a contribution. This suggests that other forms of political spending may play an equal - or possibly even more important - role in influencing members of Congress than direct contributions to campaigns.Makinson explains that on most important public policy issues, there are teams of public relations firms, lobbying firms, and grassroots mobilization firms working behind the scenes to shift public opinion. The amounts of money spent on these efforts dwarf actual campaign spending. In addition, many nonprofit groups, such as the League of Conservation Voters and Americans for Tax Reform, issue frequent scorecards for each member of Congress on the issues they care about. Although these groups are (for the most part) prohibited from lobbying on their own, they have considerable clout with organizations that do lobby, and influence Congress via this indirect route.Another important point Makinson notes is that groups which the media views in a positive light can exert more influence with a given level of funding than groups the media dislikes. This explains why some groups - such as environmentalists - tend to have considerably more clout than their funding levels seem to dictate.These facts lead some of the experts Makinson interviews to defend unpopular fundraising tactics - despite their general support for campaign finance reform. For example, Senator Hillary Clinton's joint senatorial fundraising PAC was initially attacked by those opposed to the involvement of