We’ve publicly funded presidential elections since 1976. We tried to get the money out of presidential races. The idea was to give presidential candidates public money that they, in turn, would use to advertise themselves and win the voter’s attention and votes. Leveling the playing field is a great theory. It was just a nice idea. Money never quite edged out of presidential races.
As a result of Obama’s fund-raising in the 2008 election, the idea of public funding may have been killed. We’ll have to wait and see what happens in 2012 and 2016. Obama discovered he could rake in amounts that made the public funds look puny. He raised a lot of cash. He won.
Should we continue to use tax dollars to fund presidential races? Should we bag it as one more good idea that failed? Perhaps we’ve been cheap, should we increase the amounts? Instead of a $3 tax check off, how about $5 or $10? For that matter, should we just shut down the FEC, end all accountability and let the money flow?
If we persist in an attempt to control money in politics, we are trying to beat a dead horse to death. People with lots of money will contribute to candidates (in any other setting we’d use the verb “buy”). Politicians will accept money. Most pols will play by whatever rules exist. Yes, given the rules most pols are ethical. However, some will break the law. Some will come within a millimeter of committing a crime but remain merely ethically challenged.
Today, our pols are lush with big donor money. When has it been different? I’m not sure it’s ever been that different, However, this this time around, courtesy of the Supreme Court, pols can benefit from unlimited spending. Now we have to concern ourselves with the pals of the pols. Pals put together Super Pacs. Pals spend as much as they want and as they see fit.
We’ve already seen the effects of Super Pacs. Gingrich learned that non-coordinated attacks from Super Pacs can sunk his U.S.S. Iowa. Of course, others who are friends of Newt, returned fire in South Carolina. Miracle of miracles the good ship Mitt foundered on the shoals of unspent funds. Money and politics will not be separated.
The problem with the money, is simple. People who donate large sums of cash, expect something in return. There may be one donor who is just interested in seeing a candidate win and nothing else, but he’s in the 1% of big donors. The 99% of donor whales want a return on their investment. That’s when money corrupts our politics and our government.
Elected officials do favors for a donor. A tax break here or a regulatory exemption there does yield a significant return on an investment. Perhaps a bit of restraint of trade is needed to keep foreign products out, perhaps a donation is made. I understand domestic sugar remains quite profitable. I think you understand how this works. It’s all so much Quid pro Quo. Oh, that’s illegal.
Our pols and their donors have figured out how to put the quo, the deed, antecedent to the quid or cash. That’s legal. It works especially well if pols run for reelection. A deed done in one Congress is compensated for when the pol runs to be a member of the next.
The longer a pols stays in office, the more money he or she collects. The longer a pol stays in office, the more owned and operated by donors he or she becomes. Their loyalty transcends parties, which is one reason Congresses have done less and less as more and more money has been collected to stay in office. Congress is a confederation of wholly owned to partially owned defenders of interests. Members of Congress really should be attired akin to NASCAR drivers. As least we would know all of their sponsors, patrons, and owners.
Money cannot be beaten head on. Pols will not change what they have. They may not like the current system, but it’s a “devil you know” situation. Expecting them to control donations and limit money is like expecting a junkie with the shakes to give you his last fix.
One thing we usually overlook when we assess the relationships between politics and money, is votes and voters. That is surprising, since all that money is collected for one reason. Candidates need to be elected. The candidate who receives the most votes wins the election and can run for reelection. Money is used to advertise candidates. Do note incumbents have one additional edge, they may have bribed voters by “bringing home the earmark bacon.” Incumbents try to return more tax dollars to their home states than were collected in taxes. The states of the former Confederacy does very well on this score.
As increasingly more money is spent on elections, the elected do less and less governing for the electorate. We have to wonder why we don’t change any of the practices associated with pols, elections, and reelections? The current practices are what they know, what they understand. If one thing is changed, then incumbents might lose and one party might become over or under represented in the next Congress. It really does come down to it’s “the devil you know.” Is there any possibility of change? Pols accept the current system. Wouldn’t you retain a system that yields a +95% assurance of keeping your elected job for all long as you want?
Is there anything that can be done? Well, I have a suggestion. We don’t go after money. For that matter, we could also decide to back unlimited spending on any aspect of elections, provided there is strong transparency on who gives how much to whom. That seems like a fair trade. We allow unlimited money for total transparency. Why not?
We don’t demand that pols change behavior either. We don’t even get rid of the presidential election fund, however, here is my suggestion, we quit using the money to fund presidential campaigns.
Instead, we use the money to finance the operations of running elections in our States and their localities. Right now, states, localities and political parties pay the freight for the polling place, the machines, the personnel. We will use the presidential election fund to become a simple election fund. The federal government will cover up all of those election costs. We, the people, will become a kind of large donor Oh, as we pick up the election costs, we will expect a return on our investment.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment