"Money and Politics"

Like other problems that defy solutions, such as cleaning up the 54 million gallons of nuclear waste that exist around the world, money and politics are conjoined twins. We must live with it, but we should be aware of what has been going on, even when regarded with a light touch.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Money and Politics”

October 15, 2023

 

“The way to solve all the money in politics is not to pretend we can get money out of politics.

That will never happen. We have to channel it in ways where we can see it and hold it accountable.”

                                                                                              Attributed to Mark Shields (1937-2022)                                                                                                                            American political columnist

 

If a resurrected Frank Sinatra were to sing “Love and Marriage,” the first line might go “Love and marriage, love and marriage / Go together like pols and cabbage.” Politics and money are inseparable. A February 11, 2021 report from Open Secrets was headlined: “Political spending in the 2020 election totaled $14.4 billion, more than doubling the total cost of the record-breaking 2016 presidential election cycle.” What will the tab be for 2024? On November 8, 2022, CNN reported: “The five most expensive Senate races of 2022 (Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Ohio) have seen nearly $1.3 billion in spending across the primary and general elections…a staggering sum that speaks to the massive amounts of money flooding the political system.” This has long been the case. In Will Rogers’ Daily Telegram for June 28, 1931, he wrote: “Politics has got so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to get beat nowadays.”

 

PEW Research, in a study released on September 19, 2023, found that both Republicans and Democrats say major donors and lobbyists have too much influence on Congress – 83% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats. 71% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats believe there should be limits on the amounts individuals and organizations can spend on elections, but what those limits should be was left unsaid. Nearly six-in-ten Americans (58%) say it is possible to have laws that would effectively reduce the role of money in politics, with 66% of Democrats saying this is possible and 52% of Republicans. However, the study did not explain what laws should be enacted. 59% of respondents suggested donating money to a charity or non-profit would be “extremely, or somewhat, effective” in causing positive change, but which charities or non-profits were left unnamed. Ironically, 50% suggested donating money to a candidate or party. 

 

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision in January 2010 is generally blamed for the increase in political campaign spending, and history suggests some validity to that allegation. According to Open Secrets, the 2008 Presidential campaign was the first to exceed a billion dollars, while four years later the 2012 campaign, according to the same source, cost $6.3 billion. 

 

The ability to vote in America has been an evolutionary process. In the late 1700s, voting was limited to white male landowners, at most a few hundred thousand. In the ensuing decades, the right to vote was gradually expanded to non-landowning white males. The 15^th Amendment, ratified in 1870, ensured the right to vote could not be denied based on race, though many southern states erected barriers, such as poll taxes and literacy tests. The 19^th Amendment, ratified in 1920, gave the right to vote to women. (It still amazes me to think that my paternal grandmother, who I knew well, could not vote until she was forty-five!) The 24^th Amendment, ratified in 1964, prohibited Congress and the states from implementing a poll tax, or other type of tax, as a requirement for eligibility to vote in federal elections. And the 26^th Amendment, ratified in 1971, guaranteed that no citizen aged 18 and older could be denied the right to vote. As the voting franchise expanded – in 2022, there were, according to statista.com, 168.42 million Americans registered to vote – the cost of influencing elections rose. Of course, the proliferation of the internet and social media expanded the number of avenues to reach voters. And, of course, we cannot forget that the media is a primary beneficiary of increased spending on elections.

 

Most voters agree there is too much money in politics, causing one to speculate that P.J. O’Rourke could have written another book: “Don’t give money to politicians, it only encourages the bastards.” There is little agreement as to how to reduce the billions spent on elections. I doubt that even Lucretia Hale’s Lady from Philadelphia could find the answer. Reversing Citizens United is desired by many but would violate the concept of free speech and encourage a greater use of “dark” money. Public financing would benefit incumbents, and, anyway, why should my tax dollars be used to support someone I don’t like? Mark Shields, in the rubric at the top of this essay, offered, in my opinion, the most sensible solution. Sunshine. The name of every individual who contributes to a politician, PAC, or political campaign, regardless of amount, should be in the public domain. No organization that contributes to a politician, his policies, or a political campaign should receive tax-exempt status. Political Action Committees should publish the names of all who contribute to them. Many people respect the secret ballot, so would not want their name associated with a particular candidate. Congressional term limits would have the benefit of diminishing the relative importance of any single member of Congress. 

 

There is no satisfactory answer; for the question of money and politics is largely rhetorical. Like the weather, in those innocent pre climate-catastrophe days, money and politics is something about which everybody talks but no one does anything. As for my response, I do not contribute to any state or national politicians, PACs, or their campaigns – it only encourages the bastards.