One Dollar = One Vote

I don't think there is anything terribly new about lamenting the growing costs of electoral campaigns in this country but there are reasons to keep complaining. The issue has a special place for me in my usual round of rantings. For one, as an undergrad a wrote an essay on the problem of corporate lobbying (I was specific in this case in that I did not address non-profits) and the costs of elections. For this wonderful essay for my one (and only) American Govt course I received a generous D (never piss off a prof who used to work for a Senator and who believes whole heartedly in the free speech of cash). This would be painful enough if I didn't have to deal with people on a regular basis who constantly argue with me that the influence of wealthy Americans is overplayed- after all, they only get 'one vote'. Bollocks.

There is on the surface, however, something odd about dishing out around 7 to 10 million dollars to win a seat in the Senate and at least 2 million for a seat in the House (a job that pays less than 200 grand for even those Reps that chair committees). It is even more odd if you look at campaigns such as Lamont's where he has personally donated a couple million from his own pocket (NYC Mayor Bloomberg financed his own campaign for mayor and the outgoing Senator Dayton of MN similarly funneled his own cash into his campaign). It is laudable to doggedly pursue an election with strong convictions. But, seriously, why on earth would you spend millions of your personal wealth to get a low paying job? The Senate is becoming a rich man's club since it seems that bored millionaires inevitably desire to hang out there. But since campaigns are rarely financed by a single individual (though Republicans typically have a smaller base of donations that are, on average, significantly higher per capita than those donating cash to Democrats) much of the cash comes from PACs (political action committees), which are set up by, well, anyone, but most often by lobby groups and businesses. What interest do these groups have in dishing out millions to often multiple campaigns?

No one is arguing for outright corruption here- this is all perfectly legal. But let's put this into the perspective it deserves, the perspective maintained by the US courts. Cash = Speech. The US courts have consistently ruled that spending money is an act of free speech and that all efforts to ban or seriously hinder political donations are suspect. The most recent round of laws curbed the amount individuals can donate but opened up a loophole for groups known as 527s (these include groups like Moveon.org and the more infamous Swift Boat Veterans). These groups can spend freely so long as they stick to issues and do not endorse specific candidates or work closely with campaigns. If spending money is free speech then logically those who have more of it have a greater voice. For example, if a candidate raises 5,000 dollars from 1,000 poor people and another raises 10,000 from ten wealthy individuals, which candidate can rightly claim that they represent the voice of the people? It reminds me of an old saying (I can't remember by whom but I think it was a 19th century Briton. Mills? Wilde?): the gift of free speech without the means to use it is a cruel gift indeed.

The vox populi is a lot harder to hear than the voice of the wealthy few. Think I'm wrong? A recent article in the NYT (from Sunday) discussed the role of one rather wealthy man in West Virginia who is determined to end the dominance of the Democratic Party there. He has personally spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on billboard, TV, and radio advertising criticizing most environmental and labour legislation. In a state where less than 20 grand can get you a position in the state legislature this is serious cash. Unions may funnel cash, it's true, but they gain that cash from small donations, door to door canvassing, and from union dues. This is not a 'special interest group', as they are often termed. A special interest group is a wealthy West Virginian bent on rolling back environmental and labour legislation because he works as the CEO of the third largest coal mining company in the US.

Personally, I'd like to see publicly funded elections, free air time for all candidates (they do it in the UK and the FCC could, theoretically, require it as part of a license agreement), and a complete ban on all spending by PACs and 527s. There is wiggle room here for compromise but the cash in politics is seriously hindering democracy. Sen Dayton of MN decided not to run for reelection specifically because of the near constant need to raise funds, which keep people away from legislative duties. Klobuchar and Kennedy each have a sizeable war chest to fill his spot (around 7 million each) but I still can't help by wonder whether it's worth all this.