A politics post?

Seriously, I can’t believe I actually want to write a politics post.  I’m not even registered to vote in California, because I don’t know how long I’ll be here and there’s no Democratic primary anyway this year.  But I keep reading about the other party in the news and…well, the problem is that it’s “the other party” that’s in the news.  It’s strange that I haven’t heard any recent complaining about our choiceless two-party system, because the structure of the Republican primary contest has some relevance for the question in a way that it did not before this year.  And so I’ve been thinking about what the actual effect of unlimited campaign spending is on our politics.

You (regardless of who “you” are) probably know more than I do about the fact that the Supreme Court struck down big campaign finance restrictions in some case called Citizens United, and that as a result, this year there are new “Super PACs” that spend whatever they want to say whatever they want on behalf of whomever they want, whether that person wants it or not.  I inferred that Gingrich did not want their help at one point when he was still trying to be the obligatory “clean” candidate.

Liberal politics holds that this is bad because (I think) it gives the reins of the campaign to whatever rich special interests want to take them.  Campaign finance is supposed to be strictly populist: everyone gives the same small amount or all candidates receive equal amounts from the government.  That way, no voices are drowned out.

Because I don’t actually think about what I’m indoctrinated with until many years have passed (this is not unusual, I believe) this has always seemed right to me.  But it’s actually wrong.  What it says is that the campaign should be conducted like a first election, and this is on top of the fact that we already have preliminary elections in the form of primaries.  Not everything should be put to a vote; in particular, the purpose of a campaign is to build support for a candidate who may not be well-known, but deserves to be.  Though it is not clear according to whom they are deserving.

The nightmare scenario for this position is that an election is completely dominated by one billionaire Republican donor who buys his favorite economic conservative into office, or one gigantic religious organization that buys its favorite social conservative into office.  It is generally thought, because Democrats are deeply insecure, that this will happen to the Republicans.  Two things are wrong with this sentiment: first, it could happen to a Democrat (surprise!  Rich liberals exist); second, it doesn’t have to happen this way.

Right now in the Republican primary I see that there are essentially independent free agents putting out ads in support of the candidates.  Each candidate has his own now-unregulated campaign financiers, sometimes multiple.  It is true that some of them are propping up Gingrich, who is unworthy in exactly the way the Democrats fear, and some are propping up Santorum, who is worse.  They are certainly amplifying everything that is bad about the Republicans today.  Some are supporting Romney, though, who is some things that used to be good about the Republicans even though he’d rather you forgot that.  They are, in other words, splitting the party.

The reason we have only two parties is that they have engineered every aspect of the system to favor them.  It’s supposed to be redistricting (“gerrymandering”, to use one of the oldest terms in US politics) that puts the lock on it, but for a long time it was also the party “machines” that decided what was to happen.  We have not heard much about the machines in a long time but it would be stupid to think that career political power brokers have simply given up trying to manipulate the system.

Political parties exist to support their candidates; that is literally their purpose.  When all money comes directly from the ruling parties, it is no surprise that third parties cannot flourish, because they have no existing structure.  But now money can come from anywhere.  Effectively, the requirement to form a political party at all has been abolished, except to get on ballots.

At the moment, super PACs are fighting over well-known issues.  But there’s no reason that one can’t form around a socially liberal, economically conservative East Coaster: not a popular combination now but one that I imagine has a lot of potential money.  It may not result in the creation of an actually new party but may increase the variation in one of the existing ones.

Campaign finance restrictions basically serve to make all candidates completely average.  I wonder if the Democrats realize the potential of the new system for enabling them to lean much more towards the exceptional.

This entry was posted in News, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to A politics post?

  1. Anna says:

    The biggest worry from my point of view is not that *people* will spend a lot of money on a campaign, but that *corporations* will spend a lot of money (this was what Citizens United allowed). Corporations have much more money than people, and don’t have morals or serious consequences like jail and execution that come with being human and are now allowed to have say in an election without disclosing that it is not a real person with the opinion. *People* buying airtime is not nearly as big a worry in my book as *corporations* (which almost all have the same political agenda that is in favor of large corporations at the potential expense of regular people) buying airtime.

    • ryancreich says:

      Hi Anna! It was an unexpected pleasure seeing you at the joint meetings, by the way. About your comment: it seems to me that this new money actually weakens the influence of corporations, which have always had the ability to buy the opinion of any politician corrupt enough to feel the influence of what are effectively bribes. Super PACs have the potential (which may or may not be realized) to provide additional sources of campaign revenue, ones that a politician looking for a liferaft after betraying his corporate overlords can perhaps turn to. And it does seem, going by the current news about Gingrich’s PAC’s sources, that donors do need to be reported. While corporations may indeed be interested in only one thing, so are most people, and that thing may not be really any better for others. The possibility of jail has probably never been a factor in the decision to donate to a campaign (at worst, the candidate will have to give it back), and execution (!) is so far from being a penalty for anything that I’m talking about that it may as well not exist. Not to mention not having deterred anyone ever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s