Worried About Corruption? Then Vote For Rich Politicians

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The Los Angeles Times publishes a story today – one full of innuendo, but low on evidence – claiming that the investment holdings of California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman “could pose conflicts,” should she accede to the governorship. (Full disclosure: in a bid to annoy our Santa Cruz neighbors, I affixed a Meg Whitman bumper sticker to my girlfriend’s car some months ago.) The first paragraph of the LA Times‘ story reads like this:

Reporting from Sacramento – Billionaire GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has invested her vast wealth in firms that sought to profit from the country’s credit crisis, in venture capital and hedge funds open only to the wealthy, and in oil, gas, healthcare and other concerns seeking to influence state policy.

The Times‘ intrepid reporter then proceeds to note that, because Whitman has interests in oil and gas corporations, she “could” be influenced to pursue policies that would be in their financial interests. That is, Whitman may be tempted to use her office for her own personal financial gain.

This is an unconvincing argument, to say the least. Indeed, if there was ever a candidate who would seem immune to the temptation to corruption, it would be Whitman.

After all, Meg Whitman is already tremendously rich. As that same Los Angeles Times article noted, just last year, Forbes listed the former eBay CEO as the 326th richest person in the United States. Her net worth is estimated to be $1.2 billion. Whitman is so fabulously wealthy that her husband Griff Harsh, the head of neurosurgery at Stanford University, is not the family’s breadwinner. (Indeed, she could buy – on internet auction, mind you – her husband many times over.) All of this goes to show that Whitman would have no incentive towards corruption. When you are already a billionaire, why would you risk your integrity, career, and freedom for money that you couldn’t possibly need?

Events of the past few years have demonstrated that it is middle class politicians – the not quite rich – who have used their public offices to fill their personal coffers. Former California Representative Duke Cunnigham admitted to selling his office for a relatively piddling $630,000. Former Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana was recently sentenced to thirteen years in prison for concealing $90,000. Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevnes went down because of some unreported repairs that he received on his home. (He was later exonerated.) Future Former Representative Charlie Rangel of New York failed to disclose as much as $780,000 in income.

Sums like these – while obviously significant –  would not amount to a hill of beans to someone as independently wealthy as Whitman.

This is in no way to argue that politics should become the exclusive province of the rich. Indeed, I am open to all sorts of measures that will inject more egalitarianism into the political process. But, in the current system, if corruption is your concern, then you’d do well to pull the lever for the richer candidate.  If we keep electing middle class politicians prone to corruption, our democracy will be all the poorer for it.