Do not favor the poor or show deference to the rich; judge your kin fairly – Lev. 19:15
[In January, I spoke about what Judaism has to say about politics. Not necessarily that Judaism says that one should belong to a particular American political party or vote in a particular way, but in as much as politics is the expression of our national will, we as Jews should be knowledgeable about and guided by the moral and ethical teachings of our Jewish heritage in making our political decisions. Therefore, I will use this column in this month and going forward to lay out some of the different Jewish texts that relate to political issues of the day. This month, we will examine the issues of political influence and corruption and campaign fundraising reform – Rabbi Abraham]
We seem to accept a certain inexorable logic in American politics. To be elected, one needs to campaign. To campaign, one needs money. To raise money, one needs donors. And, after the election, there is a debt owed to the donors. The recent Supreme Court decision declaring that political donations are an aspect of free speech, and therefore fall under Constitutional protections, is expected to impact that political calculus in ways that will favor larger, corporate donors. The fear is that, since corporations can give more money than individuals, they will have undue influence over legislators and, therefore, over legislation.
Judaism seems to weigh in on the influence of money. In Deuteronomy 16:19, the Torah warns that those in political power should not “take a gift: for a gift blinds the eyes of the wise, and perverts the words of the righteous”. The taking of money, or other types of gifts, can cause even those who are wise to see things differently, despite their best efforts, and distorts testimony, even from expert witnesses. (The word “righteous” in the Biblical legal context, actually means those who are judged by a court to be in the right.) Why does this happen? The Talmud explains in Ketubot 105b: "Why is graft forbidden? Once a judge accepts graft he identifies as one with the briber and no one is capable of seeing a fault in himself." There is a relationship created between the giver and receiver, and the receiver begins to identify his interests with the giver. On the more venal end, if the donor does poorly, there will be no more money to give any one. To give a more generous perspective, a legislator might feel that the commitment of those who gave large amounts to his or her campaign should be reflected in that campaign’s results – that legislator’s term in office.
Recently, Rep. Rangel from New York temporarily stepped down from his powerful position as chair of the Ways and Means committee, because of how the perception of a trip that he took on someone else’s dime reflects on the Democratic party and its other candidates. Amid all the other scandals facing him, New York Governor Paterson is facing accusations regarding his accepting Yankee tickets for his family. As voters, we look on these stories and wonder who and what are the influences on our elected officials. Even if there were no cases in which such gifts actually resulted in changing a vote or a line in a bill, our suspicions lead to broken trust. The very idea that our representatives truly represent those who voted for (or even against) them comes into question.
Judaism expects legal cases to be judged on merit – tzedek, tzedek tirdof – Justice, justice shall you pursue. As it says in the portion that we read on Yom Kippur afternoon, the “holiness code” quoted above in Leviticus, we are told not to be swayed by those who have more money, or by those who have less.
Some questions to ponder –
Do we believe in a standard of judgment? Do we expect our legislators to follow their own consciences or to follow the popular will? Does that expectation change how we pick whom we would vote for? Is “transparency” in donation enough of a counter, or does money still blind the eyes of the wise, even if everyone can see where the money is?
