Votes Bought and Paid For

George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my regular bi-weekly commentary that aired 8 July 2011 on KVMR-FM.]

What kind of First Amendment rights should institutions have; institutions comprised of people getting together for a purpose?  The question is again coming to public attention as the 2012 election season is now officially off and running.  Actually, the question is really much more focused than that.  The progressive left is pointedly asking about what rights do corporations have to be heard during an election season as they promote candidates and issues.  The conservative right is similarly asking what rights do unions have – especially public service unions – in promoting their candidates and issues.

Both sides have similar views about the critical thinking skills of the average voter – namely that he doesn’t have any critical thinking skills, at least none that will be applied to questions of governance.  Both sides have a gut feeling that the overwhelming slice of voters hold on to a few tenets or beliefs that number less than their fingers.  In popular socio-economics, tenets is the fancy word for ‘slogans’ or ‘sound bites’ that represent some fundamental truths.  There is a smaller fraction of more sophisticated voters that may push the number of their tenets into the mid-teens, but don’t push too hard.

Both sides also know from countless studies that these tenets are malleable, interchangeable, and that only a very few of them rise to influence when the vote is ready to be cast.  In the end, what determines the make-up of lightly anchored ideologies is the ‘credible’ repetition of broadcast slogans as the election approaches.  And therein lies opportunity for the moneyed interests of the land.  Money pays for credible sources and repetition.  If two competing sound bite contents are somewhat equally compelling, then the side with the most money will change and cement more minds, and go on to win.

By law, corporations have most of the rights that a ‘normal person’ has, and free speech under the First Amendment is one of them.  This was most recently confirmed in 2010 by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case.  Notable differences with a ‘normal person’ are that the corporation cannot vote, be counted in a census, and invoke the self-incrimination protections of the Fifth Amendment in its own defense.  But, under increasingly complex regulations, a corporation can fund the broad repetition of credible sources in support of issues and, even, candidates.  But the overall controversy over institutions using their considerable resources to fund political ads and advocacy documentaries is far from over.

In the 2008 election, candidate Obama received the largest institutional contributions of any candidate, pocketing over $70 million in direct contributions, and over $300M in indirect contributions from both private and public sector unions.  These sums guaranteed unions access at the highest levels of government.  Both Andy Stern of the SEIU and Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO became the hands down most frequent visitors to the White House, often staying overnight.  John McCain was able to muster less than half of this which was attributed to his ‘corporate fat cat’ supporters.

Nevertheless, today the hew and cry from the progressives is that corporations have an undue influence on elections precisely due to the voter attributes described above.  And the hammer being used now is whether the corporation is considered a ‘person’ under the 14th Amendment that was passed to procure civil rights for recently freed slaves.  For some reason the same arguments in the mainstream media don’t include the proscription of unions.  They get a free pass from the left because unions can and do deliver prodigious amounts of money to politicians, but they also deliver reliable lockstep voters for the same causes.  The Republicans are outgunned here on all fronts.

But the question remains, should corporations have an equal political voice with the unions?  If so, why is there a one-sided assault to silence corporations?  If not, what is the basis for elevating the unions to a privileged status?

My name is Rebane, and I also expand on these and other themes in my Union columns, and on georgerebane.com where this transcript appears.  These opinions are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

Comments

[Todd Juvinall]

After having had to fill out all the paperwork to run for office I came to the conclusion long ago that I think anyone and any organization or business should be able to give as much as they want with one requirement. It must be widely reported within 24 hours. Then the 30% who now take the time to vote will be able to decide if the candidate getting a million bucks from the AL-CIO is worthy of their vote.

[Ben Emery]

George,
Liked the first minute or so of you editorial and even agree with the union money. I like and fully support union but don't think their money should be dumped into elections and candidates. We should eliminate ALL special interest money out of our elections. Our government is supposed to represent the people not special interests and it seems like we both agree this is not happening.

The answer is public financed campaigns with spending caps along with equal prime time exposure over public airwaves (media's part of getting license)for candidates who meet signature and small donation requirements. We then choose the candidates instead of the media. We shorten the election cycle. Candidates would talk more about issues instead of smear due to not having unlimited funds to throw into counter campaigns. It would cost a little less than $10 per federal tax return to cover all federal office elections. To regain control over our reps I think ten bucks is worth it.

If we want to dilute the centralization of power and make government more difficult to corrupt we introduce Instant Run Off Voting, no more spoilers. This would give a very diverse range of ideas to choose. We have then eliminated special interest money, increased the amount of ideas, shortened election cycle, reduced counter campaigning a.k.a. smear, and have brought the government back to representing the people. The only losers would be the media who would lose the billions of advertising dollars.

[Ben Emery]

One more thing

My brother is in town visiting from his home in Asia. He mainly works within his local community but also works with the international community as well. Within this international community including multiple countries in both Europe and Asia along with Australia. Speaking in general consensus of their nations view on American politics, they all cannot believe or are baffled that the Republican Party is a major party. GOP would be the way outside fringe in their countries for the platform they have embraced over the last two decades.

[Todd Juvinall]

I think we should have an election season to mirror the British. Five weeks long and that is it. Of course, even they have scandal so it would seem to me there is really no way to fix the process by ratcheting down the ways people can give. The whole system is bogus. Let anyone and everyone give as much as they want and disclose within 24 hours. If anyone wants to see why the controls don't work look at McCain Feingold. It was supposed to stop money and instead opened the door to billion dollar campaign chests. But, hey, why should we all be concerned about real world experience? Also, the unions are losing even though they are spending gazillions. The people seem to have figured them out. This comment was for BenE.