Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The American Family Association is throwing a fit because their political opponents give money to candidates just like they do.
The American Family Association lists nine current political candidates, mostly incumbents, who have accepted contributions either from the gambling industry or from other candidates that received the industry contributions. A bulletin this week from AFA points to House Gaming Committee chairman Bobby Moak, who -- according to Secretary of State Eric Clark's website -- received at least $25,000 from casinos or casino employees, and made donations himself to at least two other political candidates.AFA spokesman Randy Sharp says his organization considers that a breach of ethics -- and says it shows no semblance of propriety from elected officials.
Why would only the political contributions of a group they don't like be unethical? What's the difference between political contributions from gambling companies and gambling advocates to politicians who don't want to ban gambling and political contributions from religious right groups to politicians? The AFA shows a clearly hypocritical position:
Sharp says one cannot expect an elected official to accept money from the gambling industry and then not return the favor when legislation comes up that would benefit the gambling industry and the casinos. He cites it as another example of how the gambling industry routinely reaches into Mississippi's legislative chambers and tries to influence the process for its benefit.
And one cannot expected an elected official to accept money from anti-gambling interest groups and then not return the favor when legislation comes up that would diminish the rights of those who gamble. There is one obvious difference between the two though: one of them seeks to control the actions of other people and violate their right to do with their money as they see fit, while the other does not. That is a far greater example of unethical behavior in my book.
Comments
While it would be common sense that groups will hope to benefit from any donation they made, I don't see where it says that the AFA have also made donations to people on that committee. Or any committee. While I imagine it is likely they have, for this to be hypocrisy, that would be essential.
Posted by: G. Shelley | August 19, 2007 10:08 AM
Well, it's a One News Now article, so it wouldn't be surprising if it were heavily slanted in the AFA's favor.
Posted by: Wes | August 19, 2007 10:21 AM
What I always wonder, is why are so many people so concerned with what other people do? Why can't they just mind their own business and live the way they want to, leaving everyone else to do the same? It's boggling.
Posted by: writerdd | August 19, 2007 10:24 AM
Oh my God, stop the presses and call the cops! An industry is (gasp)...lobbying. Next thing you know, they'll be putting ads on television to influence voters!
Posted by: CPT_Doom | August 19, 2007 10:48 AM
Writerdd: because then they might have to see the dreaded gayz living their "lifestyle" and being happy, which makes it harder to explain to Buffy and Miffy why teh gayz are so doomed.
Posted by: lauram | August 19, 2007 11:04 AM
G. Shelley wrote:
I disagree. Even if the AFA never gave any money to elected officials, their allies and followers do. And they do so in order to influence the election and influence the votes of those they donate to. The hypocrisy is in claiming that only one side donating money to influence legislators is unethical.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 19, 2007 12:59 PM
AFA being a non-profit, I would assume they are prohibited from giving money to candidates directly, although they may well have a PAC, I don't know. Giving campaign contributions is a form of lobbying, as Ed says, and is no more unseemly than any other (even if much less effective in terms of cost/benefit than direct lobbying).
That being said, there is something unseemly about legislators taking campaign contributions from interests that they directly oversee as is alleged here. It is not a coincidence that members of the gambling subcommittee get contributions from gambling interests, in the same way that on the national level members of the Medicare Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee get lots of cash from drug companies. It is not necessarily unethical, but it looks bad.
Posted by: kehrsam | August 19, 2007 3:09 PM
Amazing, isn't it Ed, that these groups who are so up in arms about getting the government out of our lives, suddenly want the government very much in our lives whenever someone else is doing something the they find offensive?
Of coure, Bingo and the lottery aren't "gambling", no sirree bob...
Posted by: Science Avenger | August 19, 2007 5:58 PM