On Buying Votes and Government Funding of Elections — If money is “nothing more nor less than a means for exchange of goods or services”, then obviously when an individual or organized entity provides financial support to a political entity it is for the purchase of present or future services. It is no different than buying the services of a mechanic or doctor. We individually or collectively provide financial political support because we expect continuing or new political support in accordance with a candidate’s (or political party’s) stated positions on issues, or their averment to continue along past political lines. Thus it is obviously also true that big money buys political bias or government for the benefit of self — big contributors. We and big money each buy the vote of our preferred candidates, but big money buys more, more influence and over more offices. Big money ultimately derives from the pockets of consumers, that is from business profits and the wages/commissions/stocks of its stock holders and high earners. So consumers (including the lady buying milk for her baby with food stamps) pay for representation that they often do not endorse (precisely because it supports interests contrary to that of the consumer) and then they may pay again for the same political position when they make an individual political contribution for a political entity opposed to the money position.
One might think then that public funding of elections would gain acceptance and predominance in a democracy but it has not worked that way in the USA (probably nowhere). Extant politicians (could not have been elected without big money) put enough “big money” favoritism into such legislation as to promote its immediate or eventual failure while at the same time they can say they voted for the legislation. Supreme courts have often, if not predominantly, found against such legislation, even when adopted by ballot initiatives.
Once a government allows non-public money to influence elections how can the public regain “one person one vote equivalence” in the political marketplace?
Big money is fond of saying (obliquely of course) that their money represents one person one vote, you bought their fossil fuel product so obviously you approve. You vote with your pocket book with every purchase of their goods or services, so when big oil or big medical (or any other product/service category) spend money on elections, it’s the result of your democratic decisions with your pocket-books (so they imply). Since their money thus represents your interests their political contributions fairly represent the interests of consumers and should not be constrained. And now we have the US Supreme court agreeing that money is speech, and corporations are people whose speech cannot be constrained.
And the Solution Is >>> Proposed US Constitutional Amendment - re public support of candidates for elective government positions in the USA.
No money or value equivalent shall be used by candidates or in behalf of candidates to engage in pursuit of an elected government position that is not public money (acquired by the same means as all other funds of the applicable government entity). The public support of candidates shall be equal for a minimum of 3 candidates and a maximum of 5 candidates for any elected government position in these United States.
Questions & Comments with Answers
Q - This appears to infringe on the rights of the states and any government entities created in accordance with state laws to control their own election process.
A - It doesn’t infringe, it ceases insofar as election funding is concerned.
Q - What if there are only 1 or 2 candidates.
A - It is an intended obligation on the applicable government entity to find three candidates. That will be less costly than consequent judicial challenges.
Q - What about primaries or a prelude by any other name/method?
A - This requirement does not apply.
Q - Is it true then (re primaries) that big money could thwart the intent by flooding the candidate pool with its preferred 5 candidates?
A - That’s part of the reason we have judicial systems, to prevent thwarting of laws by any means. They could try, but expensive court challenges would follow and they would lose — not only waste of their money, also expenses of the applicable government entity, court costs, and penalties.
Q - But this will be terribly expensive for governments at all levels.
A - Such thinking comes up all the time and amazes this author. Thomas Paine understood the situation 235 years ago when he was a primary creator of the USA. All the big money used now to buy votes comes from you the consumers. This amendment not only eliminates big money dominance of elections but enables the public consumers to determine how much money gets spent on election campaigns.
Q - This would unconstitutionally prohibit a person from spending their own money to seek political office.
A - It would end Mr or Mrs deep pockets from gaining political power based on their money rather than merit, but they could compete fairly based on merit. An amendment is part of the constitution so it would not be unconstitutional.
Q - Big money of every variety will fight this tooth and nail, it will never gain approval by 3/4ths of the states, thats why Republican “big money” expends so much on state control.
A - That is correct. Once big money is allowed on the public chess board, it is very difficult to achieve one person one vote equivalency. However the progressive movement achieved such success once before — with the 16th through 19th amendments to the constitution. 16th — Income Tax, 17 - Direct election of Senators, 18th - Prohibition, 19th - Women's vote. At that time however the progressive movement was strong across party lines, and prohibition gained religious support comparable to that of the woman's vote issue. “Progressive” has meaning - an evolutionary quest for truth in all things. If it is true that one person one vote equivalency is true public value it is part of our definition and we shall proceed until it is achieved. Are you with us???
Q - I don’t like this idea, too much power in the federal government, and money is often proportional to merit.
A - Then you should post an alternative and explain why it is better. While you are at it explain how federal government power is bad and state government power is so much better. If there is hullabaloo about unfair limitations on voting, from whence does it originate — or is unfairness in voting what you would like? And if money is proportional to merit shouldn’t we eliminate voting and let kings rule? Whether you title it king, despot, prince or whatever, it will eventually be one ruling family with results the same as in the dark ages or Saudi Arabia today.