Post

We’re throwing money away…on elections

There is nothing more mind numbing than an American presidential election cycle. Combine that national noise machine with the congressional, state and local races, and we all must endure almost 24/7 promises, pledges and mudslinging, and it begins a full two years before the election is held.

But beyond the aggravation of being confronted with this inanity at every turn is the sad, sad truth that elections are even bigger business than it’s been in previous years — an industry in 2008 which will suck up this cycle nearly $5.5 billion!

The nonpartisan, nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) tracks the money given to candidates, the spending thereof and spending’s impact on policy. Last week, CRP reported both presidential and congressional elections will cost about $5.3 billion and change, more than $1 billion more than was spent in the 2002-2004 election cycle — and that spending set a record! Candidates for Congress will spend nearly $3 billion of that total; the two men running for president will spend about $1.5 billion. And look what you get for the money.

I hate being cynical about a system as time-tested and venerable as democratic elections, but enough is enough. A CRP executive captured the reality of this deluge of dollars: “You can’t win a seat in Congress without being personally wealthy or knowing a lot of wealthy people who are willing to back you with their money.” With a small stretch, this can be extended to those men and women who seek the presidency. There ain’t a “middle class” mug among the gaggle who’ve chased the Oval Office since January, 2007.

And as much as I also fear the federal government getting into the fray, limits must be set. In Great Britain, no candidate for Parliament can spend more than a very modest set limit — by US standards — plus a pence-per-constituent allowance. The public can only be assaulted by candidates sucking up the public airways for 30-45 days, depending on the election.

The monies being contributed are not $5-10 contributions of the individual, despite what the Obama campaign would like us to believe. CRP reports the biggest category of donor in its report lists their occupation as “retired,” followed by lawyers and law firms, securities/investment industry types, real estate folks and health professionals. The spread between business and union contributions is about 70% business, 30% union.

My biggest concern is the system prices out talent. Incumbents enjoy fundraising advantages over challengers because most donors figure it’s better the devil you know. Very few political action committee execs I know are bold enough to research, identify and support challengers to sitting members of Congress. In fact, I know one major ag trade group which contributes only to incumbents. To bring new blood to the system, new thinking and a new approach to party loyalty — as in, “Gee, my constituents come first” — then spending must be controlled so that Everyman and Everywoman have a chance.

By crushing the manacles of money that inhibit broader participation in the system, we also have a better chance at breaking the “seniority” system in our Congress which is becoming the most serious impediment to good government I can think of. Just this week, Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), 91, the longest serving member of the Senate at nearly 50 years, in poor health, refused to even consider stepping aside as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, one of the most important and powerful committees in Congress.

Strictly limiting spending for all federal candidates — no “opting out” of federal financing limits — also breaks the hold of the national parties in hand-picking candidates in various states and districts, candidates who are ultimately beholden to “The Party” for the money necessary for them to get elected — and reelected.

There are a lot of alternatives being tossed around. I learned just this week — though I’ve not confirmed it because I don’t want to find out it’s not true — that our Founding Fathers in creating Congress contemplated that each state’s two Senators would be appointed by the Governor of each state, with the general population electing the House delegation. I kind of like that up to the point it creates 50 little potentates in the states.

The notion that any child born in America can grow up to be president doesn’t hold any more because, according to my math, only about 1% of the population can afford to even contemplate a run for national office. Congress and the presidency were never meant to be retirement occupations.