Nov. 24 Daily News editorial

Lobbyists and other apologists for the current money-driven system of funding political campaigns often dismiss critics with the counterintuitive claim that big donors seek nothing more than good government. If so, some contributors must be pleasantly surprised by the return on their investment.

Public Campaign, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit provides the latest evidence of the impact these special-interest contributions can have on the lawmaking process. A study released by the organization earlier this month demonstrates how big money from a small group has help sustain the economic embargo against Cuba long after the policy had outlived any usefulness it may have once had.

According to a report by Associated Press Hispanic affairs writer Laura Wides-Munoz, Public Campaign identified many instances in which members of Congress changed their positions on Cuban policy within months of receiving campaign donations from the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, a group that supports tough U.S. sanctions against the island nation. The study named at least 18 lawmakers who changed their votes once they began receiving donations from the PAC. Among the examples cited by Wides-Munoz was U.S. Rep. Mike McIntrye, D-N.C. McIntrye had consistently voted to ease the embargo until 2004, when he changed is position to support the embargo. McIntrye has since received $14,500 from the PAC.

McIntrye told Wides-Munoz that he’d had a change of heart with regard to the embargo that had nothing to do with campaign contributions. That may be, but McIntrye and others who chose to get tough on Cuba around the time this PAC began contributing to their campaign war chests are swimming against the popular tide on this issue.

Support for sanctions against Cuba has been declining for several years now. This is the case even in Florida’s large community of Cuban exiles. Exit polls following the 2008 congressional elections showed that taking a hard line against Cuba no longer guarantees the support of Florida’s Cuban voters. U.S. Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., told Wides-Munoz of an increasing disconnect between those who support the hard-line U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC and the majority of the Cuban-American community. Polls show supporters of the embargo may no longer constitute a majority, according to Wides-Munoz.

This is how money can distort the political process — giving a disproportionate voice to special interest donors representing a minority. Big money donations, more often than not, buy access and influence. This can both distort and corrupt the democratic process. Limits on contributions are no sure remedy. They often risk tripping over the Constitution. Also, where there’s a will, there’s always a loophole. The best medicine for this money-driven system is transparency. Voters who can follow the money can make informed decisions at the polls. That prospect is likely to have greater influence on politicians than any campaign donation.