Are our Representatives Trustworthy?

The framers of this great nation’s constitution instilled it with a core of set values, principles, and institutions. One of the most important institutions–if not the most important- is checks and balances. Institutions establish rules, roles and unite people within those roles, therefore inspiring a sense of identity and incentives. The identity of this country has consequently included a sense of limiting the power of any one entity be it a person, a business, an interest group, etc.

In our legislative body, Congress, which is itself checked by two other branches of government, the two houses serve as one of the checks on one another. Within houses, committees, time constraints, and diverse interests serve as other checks and balances. But where there is money involved, people tend to organize very quickly as wolves gather when they spot the day's meal. And with very little checking or balancing how third parties distribute their money, why isn't there more regulation?

Journalist Robert Pear wrote today in the New York Times about how 42 House Representatives on both sides of the aisle submitted very similar statements for the Congressional Record in defense of keeping scientific research jobs in the United States. After the Times informs the reader that these representatives were fed propaganda from Genetech, a large biotech company, and that this same company’s lobbyists’ give generous campaign contributions, Representatives' unity should come as no surprise. But is this democratic? Under a trusteeship vision of democracy –which would be most in support of these schemes than any other view- only a little. We might trust our representatives, once elected, to do whatever they see fit --but can we trust that they will remain so discreet even after wealthy third parties have had a go at them? I don’t think so, and Genetech's broad bipartisan success supports this view.