Two Solutions to Money in Politics: A Simple Legislative Policy


A few months back I asked the question: “Why is it preferable for a campaign to be self-funded than to be funded by donors? Or as I stated originally in its undiplomatically variation: Why is it better to allow a wealthy man to buy an election directly, than through an intermediary?

Since then it's been an examination of the Supreme Court's continual enthusiasm to allow more money in elections. But the most relevant case to the question at hand was earlier, when the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo, there is no risk of corruption if a candidate spends their own money. But, while one must admit a candidate can't be corrupted by themselves, isn't it true that a system can be corrupted by wealth? In campaign finance, corruption is normally associated with donors receiving favors for donations. But corruption is any form of dishonest conduct, involving illegal trading of power and bribery. A person can be corrupt, and corrupt a system with the money they possess. A democracy, in which everyone is equal member, is corrupted by extravagant spending by the few, regardless of whether its source is a donor or a campaigner. Why should the singular, the solitary, the rich, be allowed such an advantage? Is it because, as President Trump said yesterday:

You appoint a rich person to be in charge of the economy... because that's the kind of thinking we want … they don't want the money, they're running the country … they are brilliant business minds … and I love all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions I don't want a poor person, does that make sense?”

No, it doesn't make sense. President Trump implies the wealthy are abler than the poor, or at the very least, understand economics better than those in poverty. But these Goldman Sachs robber barons (who infect and pervade both parties) are only skilled at enriching themselves and their Wall Street Firms. Current Director of National Economic Council, Gary Cohn, collected an incredible sum during his time as Goldman Sachs President, and led his company through the 2008 crash. Cohn managed to protect the company by deceiving investors, and then profited off the 12.6 billion Goldman Sachs received in the bailout, squeezed from the taxpayers who he'd defrauded. He was rewarded in 2008 with a sixty-seven and a half million salary, including twenty-six million dollar bonus, and yet for all his capacity to steal from the middle class while enriching himself and his friends, his abilities are neither proof he understands economic theory, nor would one want this methodology to be implimented as national financial policy.

Trump implies Gary Cohn, Steven Mnuchin, and Wilbur Ross are economic geniuses, experts, when in fact they are not: just men who've acquired egregious wealth at the expensive of the majority. They hoard wealth like dragons, and one hopes they suffer the same fate as Lord Octesian.

Wealth does not furnish someone with the genius for administering a country, nor an economy, even if the fortune is self-earned, and not the gift of a benevolent parent. Nor should the ability to accumulate cash, to focus one's mind on nothing but self-enrichment, imbue any citizen with more “speech” as the Supreme Court has continued to decide. And wealth should not allow anyone to fund their own campaign, free of public support. A campaign, funded by the plutocratic few is as corrupt as can be, whether it be self-funded or supported by corporations and wealth friends.

What are the solutions? Two come readily to mind, though the first is made nearly impossible because it requires Congress acting against their interest (unless someday their interest realigns with the people). A legislative solution: limit the amount citizens can donate to candidates, to an value which the average American can afford. The current limit on donations is $2,700 per campaign, an impossible number for most Americans to even support one campaign fully. Imagine the Republican outcry if citizens spent the full amount on supporting campaigns, rather than on their healthcare. The purpose of a limit: so each American is of equal value to the political machine, so each citizen is courted with the same intensity, and so each citizen is equal to each corporation. One possible value, $200, seems high, but is the current maximum which a citizen can donate without reporting to the Federal Election Commission. Yet, $200 is more than the average American can afford to give, and so another number is warranted, $29. This is the average amount donated to the Bernie Sanders campaign during the 2016 primary. $29 is certainly a number almost anyone can afford, if they desire.

Yet, even if Congress passed such legislation, the people would then need contest with the Supreme Court. As demonstrated these past months, they seem dedicated to unlimited cash in campaigns, and appear blind to the rampant corruption cash causes in the public mind.

Next week... A second solution.

The Supreme Court, Money in Politics, and Originalism

Comments