Ethics in Politics: A Glimpse at Hillary Clinton

Let’s talk politics. It is ideal to think that politicians of today are free from vice and should work solely toward justice and the betterment of society; although, this is often not the case. At the voting polls, the political process has become a choice between the lesser of evils. Justice may have been the objective of those who have lived before us, the thoughts of great minds of the ancient Athenian democracy such as Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle, but are of little concern to leaders today. The political process is in dire need of social reform to attempt to put honesty back into government policy.

Even now, candidates for the 2008 presidential election are starting their campaigns, hoping to manipulate the public by feeding them mounds of bullshit, or what they think the public wants to hear, while at the same time making their opposition seem “unfit.” The United States, as a whole has put great emphasis on the individual, which is reflected in the way we conduct Presidential campaigns. Candidates are more concerned with their personal gain and the power associated with the Presidential position, rather than a concern for the people. Politicians #1 top priority is to get elected, rather than represent the American voters concerns. Political campaigns have turned into a game of who can afford to hire the best spin doctor rather than who might have the best innovations in good government. It is about who is born with the silver spoon in his or her mouth or who has an oil well in the family, rather than skills and leadership? It is estimated that candidates will have to raise a $100 million dollar entry fee by 2008 if they want to be viewed as a “serious candidate” (Kirkpatrick). The high cost of politics poses an ethical dilemma, because the other candidates will be significantly disadvantaged if they do not raise as much money.

Hillary Clinton’s, a 2008 presidential candidate, ethics have been put into question. Hillary was the first 2008 candidate to turn down public funding so she could raise more privately. MSNBC corresponders Edward Luce and Stephanie Kirchgaessner, claim that “Mrs. Clinton can probably raise as much as $500 million from her network of loyal backers in New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere, whereas she would be unlikely to receive much more than $100 million from public funds.” Money raised during the presidential election by both the Democrat and Republican parties, along with all other primary candidates, is expected to exceed $1 billion (Kirkpatrick).

The public financing system was established post-Watergate with the hopes of riding politics from the being influenced by the rich moneymakers. With Hillary pulling in her money from private donors, other candidates will most likely have to do that same to compete with her. The ethical issues here are whether the candidates we chose are the ones who are passionate about their issues or if their stance will ultimately make them the most money and gain the most support (Luce).

Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center states that “When you are talking about raising $1m each time, it invites abuse – the ability to buy influence and access.” For instance, even in President Bush’s presidency, prominent donors were rewarded with administrative positions and ambassadorships. If the amount of money privately funded increases, the trade-off will only get worse (Luce). It could lead to the wealthy people of America running the country, while the rest of the public sits back and watches. The rich will become the puppeteers of presidential candidates.

Dana Lehman "08"

Wilkes University Student

Communications Studies Major