George Soros penned a defensive op-ed in the Washington Post yesterday (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37126-2003Dec4.html), a cogent explanation of the political motivation behind his oh-so-legal donations to MoveOn et al.
The op-ed is well-written and clearly pointed, leaving no doubt as to the necessity of his actions (at least for a left-liberal like myself). But I'm left to wonder: why is such a well-intentioned form of political philanthropy in need of defense?
I call it political philanthropy because George Soros has no need of a more balanced tax code; he will live well regardless of what happens to the environment or our education system or the national employment numbers. Any donations he makes are ideologically-driven, almost certainly altruistic rather than self-serving: he is giving of his monies to advance a democratic agenda which will most help the lower and middle classes, future generations, women...
Why aren't more people rushing to defend him against the conservative attack-dog posturing? Why aren't more people with insane amounts of money following his lead?
And what can we do to encourage him to give even more, ASAP?
Consider the current MoveOn strategy of getting the political ads out earlier, keeping them out longer, and making them both informative and hard-hitting, the better to initiate a sea-change in political sentiment, with a potentially geometric person-to-person spread?
The strategy is reminiscent of Dean's grassroot networking, but without the top-down branching dispersal structure, relying as it does almost solely upon media--either television or internet--to spread the message.
Doing it MoveOn's way takes money. Doing it effectively takes time--thus their early start. Time, on television, is money.
Money George Soros has in spades. And if we buy the conservative argument that money is a form of free speech--as specious an argument as any I've heard regarding specie--the right wing is essentially criticizing him for the exercise of his first amendment right.
Regardless, George Soros's actions are protected under the campaign finance laws. They are politically justified by the Supreme Court's unprecedented award of the presidency to the popular loser, as well as by the armada of special interests aligned behind the fundament in chief, among which prominently figure the media outlets which so effectively mediate (read: spin) the presidential debates for our consumption.
A money race such as this shouldn't be necessary in a modern democracy, but at this time, in ours, it is. Real campaign-finance reform is impossible under the current administration.
I want to see more wealthy people donating to liberal political organizations, and I want to see them donating more, and I want them to do so as unapologetically as George Soros.
But I don't want them to have to defend their actions at the same time. They shouldn't have to.
What can we do to support, encourage, or inspire a financial get out the vote for the liberal upper classes?