The English language is subtle, which is good because reality is complex. Consider these two statements:
Obesity may lead to Type II diabetes.
versus
Obesity will lead to Type II diabetes.
There’s no question that obesity raises the risk of diabetes. Even slight overweight raises the risk five fold, and severe obesity skyrockets it to sixty-fold. But the second statement, that obesity will lead to diabetes is false. Less than a third of obese people will have diabetes, and normal weight people make up 15% of folks with Type II diabetes.
We don’t need to think that something is always harmful in every case to see it as a risk. The increased risk for diabetes from obesity means that it is prudent to seek out public policies that will reduce obesity and prudent to foster individual practices that prevent obesity or increase general fitness through exercise.
What application does this have to the current political landscape? Consider these two analogous statements:
Money in politics may lead to corruption.
Money in politics will lead to corruption.
I began with an example from medicine precisely because it would not be charged with positions that people already hold. It is also an example that readily allows you to see the difference between being a risk factor for something and inevitably causing it. The first statement, that money in politics may lead to corruption, is obviously true, so obviously that I won’t bother to lay in examples. But its truth does not necessarily entail the second, that all politicians are corrupted by money.
It does have similar implications to its parallel about obesity and diabetes. Since money can lead to corruption, it is in the best interests of society to reduce the money in politics. Overturning Citizens United and passing robust laws about campaign financing can help reduce (though not eliminate) temptations to corruption. Other things that can’t be controlled can also corrupt politicians: access to influence and sycophancy are two.
But, the most ardent opponents of anything but small dollar financing will say, why do donors give money if it doesn’t reliably buy influence? I’ll share a personal story. When I was a young assistant professor, I said to a colleague at a meeting, “Your Cockney post-doc looks at me like I’m a rare steak. What’s up with that?”
He answered, “He looks at all women that way. He says it works on one in eight, and that’s enough.”
I don’t know whether donor money influences one in eight, like that Cockney, or one in three, like obesity in diabetes. Clearly, whatever the number is, donors are willing to spin the wheel and hope. Either one is too much and good reason to have vigorous and effective legislation about campaign financing.
But what it does mean is that receiving donor money is not prima facie evidence of corruption. There is no inconsistency in working within the system to get to a place where you can change the system.