Campaign Money and Policy: It's Not Always Quid Pro Quo

I ran across a story today that highlighted Virginia GOP Representative Virginia Foxx' vocal support of for-profit colleges. The article tied her advocacy to contributions from those colleges to her campaign funds.

I have no idea whether the article is correct in drawing the conclusion it drew. But I am sure of one thing: it is highly doubtful that every member of Congress who takes a position does so as a direct result of campaign contributions. I think we sometimes carry the notion of quid pro quo too far and paint everyone with the same brush unfairly.

It is at least plausible that someone like Rep. Foxx had independently reached the position that she takes with respect to the superiority of for-profit colleges over not-for-profit government-run colleges. She may have had some personal experience with the subject. Or one of her staffers might have come to her with some research she found on the Internet or elsewhere. Then, noticing that there are indeed folks out there whose views on the subject are sympatico with her own and who have funds available for campaigns, Rep. Foxx might have approached them -- rather than the other way around -- and suggested that since she was going to advocate for them anyway, it might behoove them to help her say in Washington.

I'm sure that there is a lot of quid pro quo going on in Washington on both sides of the aisles of both houses. But I refuse to believe that all of our elected representatives base their policies on who pays the tab. The media from both extremes ballyhoo perceived corrupt connections as if they were proven fact when it is almost never the case that there is any proven connection between a contribution and a policy. Just because A happens and then B happens doesn't mean A caused B. Sometimes it does. Other times, it doesn't. A bit more discrimination and careful investigation is needed if the media are to stop playing the crucial role they now play in causing Congress to be so widely disrespected.