In 21st-century politics, we might call it "voter education". In 1757, it was a barrel of punch, 35 gal. of wine, 43 gal. of strong cider, and dinner with friends. It cost 39 pounds and 6 shillings or $195 in today's dollars. It worked, and Washington was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
His new colleagues also promptly passed a law barring candidates or "any persons on their behalf" from giving prospective voters "money, meat, drink, entertainment, provisions, presents, gifts, rewards, in order to be elected."
Today, The U.S. Supreme Court, with huge assists from a federal appellate court and a dysfunctional Federal Election Commission, has unleashed a torrent of private cash into the public political system. Where is the House of Burgesses when we need them?
Three problems have arisen, just as the burgesses anticipated.
First, are the candidates and the persons acting on their behalf, raising and spending billions of dollars. Money doesn't magically appear. Office holders have to devote enormous time and energy to fundraising, time and energy diverted from the lawmaking and governmental duties they were elected to perform.
Second, is the flood of advertising, overwhelmingly negative. The concern here is that the venomous rhetoric leaves no space for substantive discussion of the serious challenges we face. Imagine if the constructive energy was devoted to:
- Why gasoline prices are so high?
- How to deal with Iran's nuclear program.
- Why the maze of practices and competitive forces is producing the world's highest health care cost?
- How to strengthen Social Security?
- The need to redo our tax system.
Third, and it starts after Election Day. After the Super-PAC financed negative campaign rhetoric, where do the winning candidates find any room for compromise?
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!
Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us 
2 comments:
It was not a US Supreme Court decision that unleashed torrents of new spending. It was the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, in Speechnow v FEC. The Speechnow decision said individuals may give as much money as they wish to groups that make independent expenditures about candidates.
Citizens United v FEC, which gets all the attention, let corporations make independent expenditures, but only a small fraction of campaign spending this year is from corporations.
Your remarks are well taken. So how do we make sure a public corporation's expenditures of shareholders' money has been spent with their approval?
Post a Comment