A
correspondent sent along a copy of a study prepared by the League of Women
Voters having to do with the problem of money in politics.
It’s
a forty-seven page document described as a Primer for League members and others
interested in becoming active in the effort to curb the evils associated with
big money campaign financing.
There
is certainly no doubt that politics in America today is all about money. Money
gets people elected . Money buys the loyalty and favoritism of the politicians
it elects. Money, it is said, is the Mother’s Milk of politics.
I
have described the relationship between the lobbyists who infest K street and
the members of Congress as akin to a river of raw sewage. It stinks to high
heaven.
Harvard
Professor Larry Lessig described it as a ‘gift economy.’ It is, he concedes, a
crime to buy or offer to buy the votes of a member of Congress. It is not a
crime however, to donate to their campaigns or help to raise campaign funds.
And
if you are a friend of a Congressman, you can take him to a ball game. Or the
Super Bowl. Or the Masters.
The
League of Women Voters primer doesn’t address the gift economy. Rather it
focuses on the direct financing of political advocacy by corporations, which
the Supreme Court declared to be their constitutional right in the case of
Citizens United v The Federal Election Commission.
Sadly,
the ladies are off on a dead end street. The problem with money in politics
cannot be solved with bureaucratic regulation, and public financing would be an
abomination that would be controlled by incumbents for their own benefit.
The
problem with money in politics is simply that we have allowed constituencies to
become bloated. The Founders wanted Congressmen to represent 50,000 people from
their home communities. Power hungry politicians have swollen their districts
to over 750,000.
Of
course it takes a lot of money to communicate with that many people. The 17th
Amendment did the same thing for Senators. Instead of seeking the votes of a
roomful of state legislators, they now run in state wide election campaigns
costing millions of dollars.
Unhappily,
the ladies do not seem to realize that politics is nothing more than civilized
warfare. You can no more control the amount of money spent on elections than
you can control the number of speeches a candidate can give or the number of
volunteers he can recruit.
Citizens
United was correctly decided, but for the wrong reasons. The Court should have held the ban on corporate
campaign expenditure unconstitutional because political advocacy is not
interstate commerce. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to regulate
campaign financing.
Corporations
are artificial persons, created by State law. The States have always had the
power to restrict what corporations can spend their money on. The Supreme Court
interfered with State authority under the Tenth Amendment to define the powers
and duties of the corporations they charter.
Just
another reason why we need a non-partisan Supreme Court.
The secret ballot of the 1870s ended the previous ability of voters to verify the vote. There is no wayv since then to prove that vote fraud has actually taken place.
ReplyDeleteThere is a solution though. It is called the Retro-Vva. See the first article herne: http://howtorescueamerica.org
Corporate "personhood" was first conceived by the Supreme Court case Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819). In that case the right of corporations, as "persons," to contract was recognized by the Judge Marshall and the Court. In Citizens United the Court recognized the right of corporations as "persons" to free speech.
ReplyDeleteIn Darmouth College, there was no Congressional regulation at play, but even so, I do not see the problem with extending the (perhaps initially fallible) logic of "corporate personhood" to another right enjoyed by natural persons.
"Another right"? What do you mean?
ReplyDelete