Here's another reason I'm no longer a Democrat: the average donation to the Republican party is about $50 per year. Democrats, supposedly the party of the "little guy," are infinitely more dependent on the deep pockets of multibillionaires like George Soros just to keep them afloat. This would be the same Soros who is, even now, setting up special efforts just to thwart the same campaign finance "reform" laws that Democrats were so hot to pass last year--and that George W. Bush, in the single most unprincipled (and opportunistic) decision of his career, signed into law last year.
Oh, I'm sure you'll hear lots in the press over the next year about how George W. is the biggest political fundraiser of all time--if you don't adjust for inflation. When you hear that, just remember this: before George W., Bill Clinton was the biggest political fundraiser of all time. I'm sure the next President will top them both.
So what?
The notion that you're going to "get the money out of politics" is like saying you're going to "get the money out of the newspaper business" or "get the money out of daycare" or "get the money out of art" or "get the money out of education" or "get the money out of groceries." Why don't we just propose to get the money out of life?
Would you accept a law that told the publishers of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, or MTV how much they were allowed to pay reporters? Or to spend on investigative reporting? Or how much they were allowed to spend on paper and ink, or TV cameras or broadcast antannaes or satellites?
Yet you're going to tell me and my friends how much we can give to political candidates we believe in? Or to regulate the content of political advertisements in the weeks leading up to election day?!? ARE YOU FUCKING NUTS?!?!?
You want to limit what corporations or unions or professional associations can give to political causes they support? Okay. As long as you don't limit their ability to raise funds voluntarily. But the practice of limiting what individual citizens can give to anyone's election effort must be ended. As should any effort to limit what anyone can spend on newspaper or TV advertising.
Such efforts, to put it bluntly, do nothing but urinate on the 1st Amendment. They also reek of the worst sort of political elitism--because they work under the asumption that voters are simple-minded folk who automatically think whatever those smart, slick, college-educated advertisers tell them to think.
Although they aren't always right about everything, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is 100% right about this. Recent campaign finance "reform" laws (aka "McCain-Feingold" or "Shays-Mehan") are a slap in the face of the 1st amendment, and only undermine American democracy.
Beware of greeks bearing "campaign finance reform" gifts. They are fascism's trojan horse.
Cartoon by the always-excellent Cox & Forkum, who are doing some thought-provoking work on 9/11 this week. The particular toon above was first published in The Intellectual Activist. And by the way, if you like their cartoons, you will love this book. I even got an autographed copy of my very own. Don't you wish you were me? I know I do!
Also: congrats to Senator Mitch McConnell for having the biggest, hairest set in the Senate.
I'll make like a broken record -- er, malfunctioning CD player -- and repeat what I've said many a time:
The real "corrupting influence of money in politics" happens AFTER the election when the officeholder starts allocating public funds. There is no legitimate reason why the government should spend such a huge proportion of this nation's GDP on things that could be done better by other means.
If we want to get the corrupting influence of money out of politics, we should start by getting the corrupting influence of the government (run by politicians) out of the economy.
McGehee,
The problem is that it’s a chicken and egg issue. You won't the government out of the economy until you can get the money out of political campaigns. As long as those with the means to do so are allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns, government will exist to primarily serve the serve the interests of those who finance their campaigns.
Dean is dead wrong on this issue, you simply can't proxy out a right. Rights are for individuals, you can't give them to someone else. The very idea of it is counter to everything the founding fathers ever stood for. Individuals can have rights, you rights end the moment you enter into a transaction with a public official, or anyone seeking public office, that transaction can be limited by law, and should be limited by law.
McCain - Feingold is a flawed bill, no one is pretending it's not, but free speech is not money, if it was it wouldn’t cost so much [grin].
Every evil in government that you guys rail bout around here can be traced directly to the corrupting influence of rasing money. I would love Mr. McGehee to tell us all how it is that he proposes to get government out of our economy when any politician who truly advocated that would not be able to count on the contributions of the rich and powerful who donate money to campaigns precisely because they what government to be involved in the economy?
When I worked at the Director level for a mid-sized corporation I saw first hand how the campaign contribution network operated so that or company was able to secure contracts at all levels of government. Without the owners working the rubber chicken circuit we would not even have known those contracts existed. We were able to secure a 1.9 million dollar DoD contract because of contributions made to representatives on both sides of the isle during the 96 Olympics in Atlanta. Now as yourself what did business did the DoD have in Atlanta during the Olympics that would prompt them to give out a 1.9 million dollar contract to a radio news service? Right now I'm working with a company who was able to get grant through the Farm Bill to install wireless Internet access for select communities in South Carolina. The Farm Bill for crying out loud! Why? He is hooked up with two guy who have given generously to several members of the SC house delegation.
Until you have experienced it your simply not prepared for how brazen the quid pro quo is. But you all go ahead, whatever makes you sleep at night. Making politics safe for those who would screw you and not even bother to use vasiline. Meanwhile those who know how the system really works are laughing ass off. If you all can’t see that simple connection we know they're all perfactly safe.
Once again you're 180 degrees wrong, Rick -- no amount of your patented condescension is going to change that.
Less government power means less demand for influence over politicians.
Those who, on the one hand, claim they want to diminish the corrupting influence of money on politicians, and on the other hand favor more and more government power, are agitating at cross purposes to themselves.
Assuming they're sincere in both claims.
Can someone explain to me the reason why public financing is a bad idea?
I wrote it down on a slip of paper and now I seem to have misplaced it.
What Rick is stating about the ability to grease the system to get government favorable action is nothing new. In fact, Matthew Lesko and others taught whole generations of people to properly beseech the gummint to get loans/grants/free money for various things like starting small businesses and maintaining college educations.
Frankly, no act of Congress will ever directly (or indirectly) tie "campaign finance reform" to the business of doing business with government.
While money is critical to getting one's message to the voters, that message still has to resonate with the voters.
No amount of money spent on a campaign can buy and election if the voters are not turned on by the message.
Rick:
If you all can’t see that simple connection we know they're all perfactly safe.
Of course, they'll be safe even if we do notice.
One can never underestimate the power of:
Ara:
Can someone explain to me the reason why public financing is a bad idea?
No one has yet derived a method for divvying up public campaign money that's any better than private financing.
The argument for finance reform is that if every party had (basically) the same amount of money to spend on their campaign, the only thing to differentiate them would be their actual ideas. Which I suppose is what people should be basing their choice on.
I am against the whole idea though. People should be allowed to base their vote on whatever criteria they want, without the government ensuring they base it on the criteria they think is right.
I couldn't disagree more with you. The idea that people with more money to spend should be given greater influence is so clearly antithetical, on it's face, to the concept of equal representation that i'm frankly surprised to have read that analysis here.
McGehee
"Less government power means less demand for influence over politicians."
And by allowing a no-holds-barred system of financing campaigns Government will only get more and more entrenched. I asked you once to explain how allowing individuals to infuse more money into campaigns will bring about the kind of government you desire. And all you did was restate your original assertion. You also asscribed to me a position that I do not advocate. But that is a typical rhetorical dodge. And I understand why you feel that way, but like most ideologs you are only considering half the equation and you are doing so to the detriment of the change you seek to bring about. Sure passing laws that limit people contributing to campaigns can be considered increasing the power of government. If this is so it would be difficult to imagine why any politician would not only what to pass meaningful CF laws but also seek to pas ecer more restrictive CF laws. But CF reform is the one that that you can bet they will fight tooth and nail to prevent or pass half measures designed to placte the masses but really give one party and advantage over the other like McCain - Feingold, which I admitted is a bad law. But it’s a matter of picking your poison. I have seen first hand how the quid pro quo system of campaign donations works, and it supports only one thing, more pork, not less government.
It won’t and it can't. The power and influence of Government has increased right along with the influence of money in political campaigns. If there is less government, then those people who currently have influence over that government by virtue of their means will be powerless, so they will use their money to prevent that from ever happening. It's not that the voters have realized they can vote themselves a share of the public treasury that has the system in a tail spin, it’s the contributors who have figured out how to just go out and buy themselves a share of the public treasury that is the problem.
And I hate to sound condescending, but the failure of people grasp this simple fact makes it hard to sound like anything but [grin]. and for that I do apologise …
Ara,
Why don't we just run the presidential election like "American Idol?" Candidates debate, talk, interact with people, post their resumes, answer questions from Tim Russert, and are judged by the viewing audience. That's essentially what our elections are today - popularity contests. These elections would actually MAKE money rather that cost money. Even better, we could do it like the Miss America contest where each state has to send a representative and we weed them out from that point.
I know it is completely insane, but it would work!
Tim the Soldier
"...there he is. Mr. President."
LOL Tim! That is the funniest thing I've read all month!
I agree that individual citizens should be allowed to donate as much of their money as they want to any candidate. However, I am not so confident that such should be true with companies or other (non American citizen individual) entities. For instance, the idea of another country funding a US candidate bothers me a lot.
In short, I agree. But only with regards to the individual.
Oh, and as for "and that George W. Bush, in the single most unprincipled (and opportunistic) decision of his career, signed into law last year."
I've been under the impression that Georgy signs everything put in front of him. Has he ever vetoed anything? Or maybe I'm just wearing blinders on this, as I see him passing all kinds of government expanding legislation, of which I don't approve.
Ara:
Can someone explain to me the reason why public financing is a bad idea?
Well, there are well over a hundred candidates to replace our governor here in CA, and publicly financing all of them would be a bit of a task. How much money do you feel would be appropriate per candidate?
Michelle,
Three easy payments of ONLY $19.95 along with one last balloon payment of millions of dollars sure to break the budget. Or...the John Kerry Campaign brought to you by the many fine condiments at Heinz. Fill in the blank for any of you favorite or not so favorite candidates.
Tim the Soldier (sponsored by Honey Nut Cheerios)
Tim: how about having sponsor patches on their clothing, like stock-car drivers?
The movie Mystery Men did this, with Greg Kinnear as the generic Super Hero. :)
I suppose Bush would have an NRA cap and a US Steel jacket, Dean would wear a "Fruit Loops" t-shirt, and Liberman a Morton's Kosher Salt blazer and eat Betty Crocker-brand flip-flop-flapjacks.
Ahnald, would, of course, be sponsored by Vienna sausage. Heh heh heh...