Can we, the voters, handle the truth?

To many of us, Donald Trump may be just another despicable politician. And yet, he does occasionally dish out some truth.

At this year’s first televised GOP debate, he added to his pile of rough-edged rhetoric, and the pundits are still gleefully picking through his remarks, both those politically correct and the incorrect. But there is one bit of his bluster that has received very little attention. It was his remark about the value of money in politics.

Trump’s comments were triggered by a question concerning his switch from supporting Democrats to being a candidate for the Republicans, and his answer was built around the influence of his campaign contributions. It went something like this (to paraphrase): “Hey look, I’m a businessman, and occasionally I need the support of politicians, so I give them money, and they give me what I want.  I give to the Republicans. I give to the Democrats. And, when I ask, they give me whatever in the hell I want.” At which time another question came from the moderators: “Specifically what did they do?” Trump’s response: “Well, Hillary Clinton came to my wedding. Why?  Because I gave her money; she had no choice.”

That was a sample of Trump’s Truth. He is a wealthy man working primarily in a world of business transactions — negotiating deals, minimizing risk and maximizing profit, always ready to pay for a little leverage but also expecting value in exchange for the money spent. The record will show that Trump has given nearly $2 million to Democrats and Republicans. Small change for him, but in his world, a necessary and good investment. After all, his next transaction might well profit from a small boost provided by a well-placed politician. Sure he contributes. They need the money and he needs the influence.

But then, we didn’t need Trump to tell us about the money. We know about the high cost of a good campaign. But we do, I would claim, need to be reminded of a candidate’s obligations toward his or her big contributors. His anecdote about Hillary Clinton did that well: He donated and she came when he called. She had no choice.

These are ugly facts. Yet the pundits have all but ignored Trump’s anecdote and his claim that our political system is corrupt. Instead, they have filled the airwaves with distractions: the speculations about his feud with Megyn Kelly — what he said, what she said, and what he did or did not mean. Trump’s allegation about corruption has not been discussed, certainly not in proportion to the importance of his claim.

We may soon have an opportunity in Washington state to vote on I-735 — if enough signatures are collected for it to earn a spot on the ballot — an initiative on this subject of money in politics that if passed, would promote a constitutional amendment designed to redress the impact of several recent Supreme Court decisions that have exacerbated the problem. Their decisions have encouraged large corporations to put even more money into our electoral process and many have ramped up corporate spending on political action committees (PACs) and campaign contributions. They are sure to object to an I-735 attempt to limit these efforts. Will the citizens of this state be prepared to sort through the corporate agenda and business-based arguments and rather vote in our own best interests?

It is not easy to parse the pros and cons presented in well-funded TV ads as we try to educate ourselves on important political issues. As voters we rely largely upon the media, the major political parties and the candidates they put before us. Currently Donald Trump leads in the GOP primary race. Both the parties and the media seem to love him (for the ratings) and yet they hate his crude, bombastic style and, apparently, his bringing up some inconvenient truth. Do they really want to deal with the ugly fact of big donors and their not-so-subtle influence on our politics? It would seem not.

So we have Trump. He is not a polished politician. He rather blurts out what he really thinks. He most probably would make a terrible president but, as a contender in these primaries, I’ll claim that he occasionally offers something that we’re unlikely to get without him. Let’s be thankful for his clear reminder that big donors produce obligations: not necessarily for the quid pro quo but, more often, politicians obliged to resist the positive changes that the rest of us want from our government.

So, let’s hope for the passage of Initiative 735.  And even more, let’s hope for candidates who are free to pursue for the majority’s interest in our country’s governance rather than the narrow interest of a few wealthy donors.

— Ward Carson is a  retired research engineer.