Money & Politics

Local Elections,
National Fundraising

"All politics is local."

--Tip O'Neill

"Most politics is national."

--Fritz Hollings

Former South Carolina Senator Fritz Hollings makes a great case for campaign finance reform.

In a piece titled, "Money is a Cancer in Politics," Hollings notes the oceans of money needed to wage competitive campaigns for Congress today -- much of it raised from outside the district being contested.

So, political lightning rods like Michelle Bachmann can now raise millions weekly from around the country by tapping into (unrestricted) corporate and PAC money. (Thanks, Supreme Court).

Ditto for Bachmann's counterparts on the left, such as Nancy Pelosi.

Indeed, as Hollings' article points out, even rank-and-file Congressional races are flooded with outside money today.

Lack of (Political) Standing

If you live in Anoka or Buffalo or St. Cloud or any other city actually within Minnesota's Sixth District and want to contribute to Bachmann (or any other candidate for that seat), that should be your right.

But why should someone living in -- say, Peoria, Illinois -- effectively have a voice in who represents St. Cloud in Congress?

And vice versa.

The judicial system long ago developed a concept to deal with this problem

Called "legal standing," it means you can't bring a suit over an issue unless you have a personal stake in it.

It seems obvious that our political system needs something analogous (call it "political standing").

But so, too, does it seem obvious that corporations cannot be legal persons (they are), and that it's stupidity to allow corporations to make unlimited campaign contributions (they can).

P.S.: hat tip to Ned Krahl for forwarding the Hollings article.

Wall Street's "Advise and Consent" Role

"Enjoying Virtually Front-Door Access"

Executives and political action committees from Wall Street banks, hedge funds, insurance companies and related financial sectors have showered Congressional candidates with more than $1.7 billion in the last decade, with much of it going to the financial committees that oversee the industry’s operations.

In return, the financial sector has enjoyed virtually front-door access and what critics say is often favorable treatment from many lawmakers.

--"Financial Overhaul Bill Poses Big Test for Lobbyists"; The New York Times (5/22/10)

Since when did we give Wall Street a say -- the say -- in regulations purporting to regulate it?

I know the U.S. Constitution gives the Senate an "advise and consent" role -- but where it does it say anything about Wall Street??

And yet.

And yet the financial reform legislation just passed by the Senate apparently must now run the gauntlet of industry lobbyists, who would weaken (if not gut) it.

Why is this, exactly?

Oh, yes: because these guys finance our politicians' election campaigns . . .

Voting Rights in America: 200-plus Years in a Nutshell

The Supreme Court's Ruling on "Citizens United"

Does anyone -- besides the Supreme Court -- really believe that the problem with contemporary American politics is that there's too little corporate money driving the nation's political agenda?

To the point where whole industries -- like Wall Street and the financial sector -- quite transparently now have a de facto veto over how (and whether) the government should regulate them?

No, I didn't think so.

Yet, with the Supreme Court's decision last month in the Citizens United case, the prospect of any of this getting better any time soon just got dimmer.

Herewith is my take on, how over some 200-plus years of democracy, the idea of universal franchise is still . . . very much imperfect.

A 200 Year Recap

Once upon a time in America, only property-owning, white men got to vote.

Gradually, all white men got to vote, as the states dropped their property ownership requirement in the early 19th century.

Then, in the wake of the Civil War and the passage of 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, African American men were enfranchised.

From there, it took another half-century before women finally got the right to vote nationally, when the 21st Amendment was passed in 1919.

Almost another half-century passed before African-Americans really got the right to vote -- especially in the South -- when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and outlawed poll taxes.

"The More Things Change"

So where are we today?

If you're 18 years old, a U.S. citizen, and comply with local voter registration laws . . . you are legally entitled to vote. Regardless of your gender, race, or creed.

Unfortunately, however, in our current, media-driven political system, voters no longer control who gets elected to national office, and what they do once they're there -- campaign contributors do.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling last week invalidating any limits on corporate campaign finance contributions, we've finally come full circle.

Namely, the only people who get a real say in our elections -- not to mention the laws enacted by the winners of those elections -- would once again appear to be rich, property-owning white men.

Except that today, they are the ones who head the nation's largest corporations.

The more things change . . .