Bought and Paid for Politics – Our Fault

George Rebane

Was just thinking about today's more than interesting, long, and expensive election season we all are suffering through.  And the money part kind of stuck with me.  We know that money drives politics.  What drives politicians may be up for debate, but you can’t go too far off base assuming that power, fame, and fortune come in close to the top of the motivation heap.

Today campaigns cost way too much and last too long, especially given the attention span of the typical voter.  Two plausible reasons for this are 1) voter dumbth, and 2) constant need for content by the media.  The more contentious, controversial, and confusing they can make the candidates’ messages, the more there is to report, analyze, dissect, and goad to keep the election pot boiling, and the more ads can then be sold.

Voter dumbth has been much discussed on these pages.  In the large we are ignorant about geography, history, foreign policy, economics, national defense, and current events.  We forget easily and often which lets the media shovel the same copy to us with minimal modifications.  The campaigns can also be produced and aired as ongoing soap opera over an extended campaign season during which candidates’ scandals, disclosures, revelations, … can be trotted out in a planned sequence to keep the entire affair alive and titillating.

Psychologists and politicians know that to convince such voters requires simple messages (sound bites preferred) delivered from multiple sources, and repeated often with the repetition rate increasing as the election nears.  Debates are high points if they promise open conflict between candidates.  Media therefore does its best to manufacture contentious candidates.

Such a circus takes lots of money and the nation’s power brokers (read Big Money) are more than happy that such is the state of affairs.  The more expensive the better, for then Big Money becomes a requirement which can be satisfied by the candidates only through the promised sale of government goodies.  Therefore, the longer the campaign, the better Big Money can evaluate candidates’ chances for success, and the more time for negotiating deals to keep successive tranches of money flowing.  All of this would go by the board if our electorate that had more interest in our political process and more between their ears for processing.

My druthers for shorter, more informative, and cheaper campaigns would entail intense use of the internet.  Each candidate would have an extensive website whereon they would publish their updated plans, proposals, and positions on issues.  Their major speeches would be searchable on video and podcasts in both summary and extended formats.  They would participate in ad hoc exchanges (debates) with other candidates from wherever they happen to be.  Media pundits and bloggers would be able to analyze the bejeezus out of their published writings and statements, generating comparative matrices of positions and qualifications that we all value when comparing cars and clothes online.  Timely responses and/or evasions to nationally publicized questions would be available to all.  And online scores of substance over subterfuge and silliness would be generated and maintained for those with deeper interest.  In short, the campaigns would become information rich instead a continuing stream of expensive ads and events wherein candidates trade scurrilous/outrageous claims and accusations.

The entire affair doesn’t have to last more than one year (due to the extended primary season) – November to November – and without so many political ads and whistle stopping it would cost candidates about one tenth as much as the hundreds of millions spent today.  Such short campaigns would be welcomed by a better educated electorate living under a smaller government having fewer things to sell for influence and votes.

The wrong way to shorten political campaigns and try to reduce their costs is through adding more ‘fair electioneering’ regulations which, if past efforts are any indication, will do nothing but restrict political speech and grow government even more.  The other obvious, but more difficult way, is to reduce the stuff that government has to sell to highest bidders.  We know that corrupt interests embedded in both elected offices and the vast federal and state bureaucracies will fight tooth and nail not only to keep things as they are, but to also expand the sleaze into every possible nook and cranny of government.

I think it’s safe to say that least attended governments tend more rapidly toward dysfunction and evil.  Only a smart and involved people are able to maintain and deserve a liberal government like the one our Founders left us.

Comments

[Ben Emery]

As media and wealth consolidated campaigns spending skyrocketed. From 1976-1992 campaign spending increased around 10%. From 1992- 2008 campaigning spending increased 400%. Since Citizens United and the McCutcheon decisions we are looking at $10-$12 billion dollar campaign season in 2016. In 2000 around 3 billion was spent by all campaigns. Representatives/ Senators spend up to 2/3 of their of their time dialing for dollars. A US Senator has to raise about $18,000 per working day to have a chance at winning their next election. Up to 90% of legislation proposed in state and federal is written by lobbyists. The same lobbyists who provide millions of dollars to political parties and reps.

Here is the big one for Presidential campaigns, 80% of campaign spending goes towards advertising. So major media outlets want Presidential campaigns to last as long as possible and they need a horse race to keep the advertising dollars coming in. That is why when a candidate starts pulling away with a race a string of negative reports come out on that candidate.

[Bill Tozer]

Nay, Ben, it's all due to inflation. :)

[Ben Emery]

Public Financing of Campaigns with small donor and signature requirements to qualify, progressive campaign spending caps(limits campaign season and negative campaigning), equal prime time political advertising to renew FEC license, league of women voters take over debates once again, and the big one for opening up the dialogue with more ideas on the issues, Instant Run Off Voting.

http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/how-instant-runoff-voting-works/

[Ben Emery]

Sorry Bill,
Adjusted for inflation 2000 election total of $3 billion would be $4.5 billion in 2015 US dollars. The projected total cost of the 2016 election cycle is around $10-$12 billion.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

[Todd Juvinall]

Just like we have to swallow ObamaCare from the SCOTUS, you libs have to swallow Citizens United. Unless you have a way to get rid of both eh Ben?

[Ben Emery]

Todd,
ACA was passed by congress and signed into law by the President. Citizens United and McCutcheon were decisions over riding the will of the people who have been trying to limit corporate influence on the political process for over a 100 years.

We need to amend the US Constitution to take this issue off the table of SCOTUS once and for all.

https://movetoamend.org/

[Todd Juvinall]

Just as I thought Ben Emery. SCOTUS ruled on Obamacare twice which could have killed it. So as usual you are a bald faced hypocrite unwilling to compromise.

[George Rebane]

It may just be that Mr Ben Emery is blind to how Obamacare was railroaded through by 1) one party, 2) in the middle of the night, 3) with the Pelosi Principle firmly in place - not even the Democrats had read it. While Citizens United followed a quite different course of appeals in open courts with both sides' arguments always available.

And his 853pm again touting public financing of campaigns brings in the full force of new liberal bureaucracies into the election process in which, according to him, the leftwing LWV will be in charge of what then will be called 'debates'. These are the dreams of a 'more government is better' true believer. Government will adjudicate everything from your kitchen lights, the things you learn in school, the wages you earn, the things you can say in public, what you can buy in the marketplace, where you can go, and what you can do. It's all for the 'common good'.

[Todd Juvinall]

The only free media in America is at election time for democrats. All the rest have to pay.

[George Rebane]

It seems to me that so far The Donald has been doing well in the 'free media' department. The media haven't been uniformly favorable to him, but they've always spelled his name correctly.

[Todd Juvinall]

I read a side by side in the Bee a couple of weeks ago with the dems and the R's. The Bee slapped the R's and did a kiss ass for Hillary and Bernie. My point is watch for the code words. They are always there from the lames.

[Ben Emery]

George,
I will agree ACA was railroaded through the legislative process but to say in the middle of the night is far fetched. It took a year and half to get the behemoth law passed.

Can you guys not differentiate the upholding of specific laws and the striking down or removing laws? In the specific campaign reform laws the US Supreme Court has basically said the people have little to no say on how our campaigns and elections are to be conducted.

[Ben Emery]

Todd,
Outside the far right media outlets it is almost universal across the planet the Republican Party has gone off the rails. That the once near 20 candidates are all incompetent and for some candidates are very dangerous for the highest office in the US. So it is not a surprise the Bee had nothing good to say about the Republican field.

[George Rebane]

BenE 221pm - Kinda the way you differentiate making Obamacare and then SCOTUS rewriting the law in adjudication?? We're talking about the plain meaning of grade school English vocabulary stood on its head to represent "the sense of Congress". Congress didn't have any sense about the law's particulars for the simple reason that they had not read it.

Middle of the night? Yes, check out when the actual vote was rushed through. And talk about railroaded - the law was cobbled together by the Democratic leadership and then briefed in the Democratic caucus. The Republicans got to look at a highly distilled executive summary that turned out to be all lies - some of which we are discovering to this day.

[Paul Emery]

Geirge writes

" The Republicans got to look at a highly distilled executive summary that turned out to be all lies"

Kinda like the blind support the Republican Congress gave to Obama to craft the TPP, something that the never read and will be decided by a up or down vote, no Amendments. Kinda odd that they trust him to be on that but nothing else. What does that mean to you George?

[Jon]

The sequence of events for the ACA passage is called strategic legislating, political capital from winning elections and majorities in Congress, political party legislative priorities, and yes, opportunism. Repubs are just frustrated they do poorly during General Election cycles when a cross section of real Americans actually vote.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 416pm - First, digest Jon's 429pm. There was no more "blind support" on the TPP by the Republicans than there was from the Democrats. The TPP was not negotiated by Congress, but by the President under the TPA which gives the Exec branch the right to negotiate such treaties and bring them to Congress for an up/down vote. I thought you knew that.

[Gregory]

Ben,pay attention:

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
P. J. O'Rourke

Regarding Obamacare, Pelosi and Reid kept all GOP amendments at bay and own the result; hope y'all are enjoying your $2500 a year savings for better coverage and being able to keep your plan and doctor if you liked them.

[Walt]

Speaking of bought and paid for,, Check out this check written in common core.
Now can ANYONE actually tell me the amount it's supposed to be written for?
http://fox8.com/2015/09/21/checkmate-ohio-fathers-common-core-joke-scores-big-nationwide/
A pic. of said check can be found on this news site.

[Paul Emery]

George

I am stll curious as to why you think Obama and the Repubs are so chummy on this.

The Democrats had serious concerns and did not march in step as did the Republicans in their support of Obama and the TPP. It was basically Obama and the Republicams who were sepporting with much Democratic and little Republican dissent. Huge corporate influence was spread thickly to supporters including key Democrats who switched at the end after opposing.

Here's a rundown on the voting.

"Two days before the fast-track vote, Obama was a few votes shy of having the filibuster-proof majority he needed. Ron Wyden and seven other Senate Democrats announced they were on the fence on 12 May, distinguishing themselves from the Senate’s 54 Republicans and handful of Democrats as the votes to sway.

In just 24 hours, Wyden and five of those Democratic holdouts – Michael Bennet of Colorado, Dianne Feinstein of California, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, and Bill Nelson of Florida – caved and voted for fast-track.
Bennet, Murray, and Wyden – all running for re-election in 2016 – received $105,900 between the three of them. Bennet, who comes from the more purple state of Colorado, got $53,700 in corporate campaign donations between January and March 2015, according to Channing’s research.

Almost 100% of the Republicans in the US Senate voted for fast-track – the only two non-votes on TPA were a Republican from Louisiana and a Republican from "

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp

[Paul Emery]

Once again this is why I cannot support either political party. I say it again, the Republicrats and nothing but collection agencies for special interest money.

[Don Bessee]

Mr Paul, What say you about the courts recognizing that forced membership in unions especially government unions is partially in conflict with the members free speech? Thus the right to refuse dues for political actions by the 1% union bosses. Specifically the winning law suit by the southern CA teachers. ;-)

[Bill Tozer]

Well, it looks like Paul won't be voting for that Independent Sanders who sold his soul and joined the Democrat Party. Oh Gary, it's time you come out and play. Paul needs somebody to vote for. Or maybe Brother Ben will toss his skull cap into the ring. Our country needs him as well.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1023pm - Not sure I understand your question or even the words you are again attributing to me - "... why you think Obama and the Repubs are so chummy on this." Never claimed any 'chumminess', and is your "this" the TPA or the TPP?

I thought you knew that there are large contingents in both parties opposing the TPP trade treaty - Repubs concerned about national sovereignty being compromised, and Dems (unions) concerned about more jobs lost overseas. The multi-national corporatists in both parties promote TPP for obvious reasons.

[Bonnie McGuire]

It's disgusting and discouraging how dedicated some people are to political corruption they support with blind eyes and deaf ears...http://www.youtube.com/embed/svGDZOW-brA?rel=0

[Paul Emery]

George

Pardon my typo on this. I was asking your opinion as to why Obama and the Repubs are so chummy on this issue. I didn't mean to infer that you believe in their support. I'm still interested in your view as to why they agree so much on this issue.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 328pm - I can come up with no better explanation than yours, namely that both sides depend on corporatists to fund their respective political ambitions. Corporatists are not necessarily party or ideology determined as the donation patterns confirm. They give to where they think the getting will be better.

[Paul Emery]

George

we are on the same page on this one

[Todd Juvinall]

My corprotists are better than your corprotists.