In my high school civics course, we were taught that individuals were selected by popular vote based upon their ability to convince the majority of voters that this candidate best could represent them in the local, state, or federal office that was open for election; and that, upon being elected, the individual would perform as to the programs and ideals that endeared him/her to the electorate. Is this still the case, or was it ever?
Current events tend me to be cynical regarding this lesson, for I now find our politicians using less of their time to talk to their constituents and more time to talk with those who may be able to open big pocketbooks, or who may be able to deliver large contributions to the favored PAC of the politician under review. As an example, observe the behavior of Utah state legislator Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman, UT), who now solicits paid speaking engagements outside of his jurisdiction, and more relevant to this point, outside of the state of Utah. In return of fees ranging from $1500 to $4500, the good conservative representative will attend, participate in, or lead discussions that support the points of view of those open pocketbooks. However, should you try to obtain an interview with him, in Utah, regarding his position on matters that have or will come up in the State legislature; you will find, as I did, that his schedule does not permit such activity.
The attendees at these out of state events he is willing to participate in will not vote in a Utah election; they are not affected in the main by his political acts, or by his votes in our Legislature. The only benefits received are (1) his support of the causes being presented at these events, and (2) his war chest for the next election.
I am not saying that Rep Wimmer is unusual, or that his actions have no precedent in politics. My theory is that money has become more important than the population our elected officials who are chosen, by the voting public, to represent the public's best interests.
The study of money in politics is not new; consider the effects of groups such as “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” or “Moveon.org”. Both (and untold others) funneled large amounts of money to support/destroy candidates over and above the actual position of the candidates. In an effort to get the “right” people elected, PAC’s have been able, legally it can be stated, to push huge donations and advertising moneys into areas without declaration of their intent to impact the voters in any election.
Why? The first, largest, and most complete answer is that running for office is extremely expensive. Consider the moneys spent to elect the President of the United States. This office pays $400,00 per year (plus benefits) and yet conservatively speaking, $1 billion was spent by the major candidates in 2008.
Certainly it can be argued that money does need to be spent, that the candidates need to have a public forum to spread their point of view and convince the electorate to vote in their favor; the media, being businesses, consider this a favorable source of revenue and naturally charge whatever the market will bear in return for airing advertisements. This is the natural order of the business of politics, and it is necessary for the candidates to raise sufficient funds to get their messages out to the public. The means and methods of raising this money, however, are the core of this discussion.
Can or should we limit the amount of money that individuals, groups, businesses, and PAC’s (as well as other unknown entities) can contribute to the election of officials? One of the candidates for Governor of Utah has proposed a strict limit of $1000.00 on any campaign contribuitions coming from all groups, businesses, etc. Is this a reasonable amount? A recent Supreme Court ruling now allows corporations to donate as if they were individual voters; however, a corporation cannot cast a ballot. Is this a proper step for our Judicial Branch of the Federal Government to take? Is this "legislating from the bench, as we often hear? It will certainly be interesting to see the politicians flip-flop on this issue, as it will get a real test this election cycle.
As always, comments are appreciated.
No comments:
Post a Comment