Two things puzzle me about US elections.
Firstly, campaign funding. Why are these barely concealed bribes tolerated in the “world’s greatest democracy”, especially in these fiscally observant times. Are there any positives for the people in having big business fund politicians?
Secondly, re-election: Way before the end of last year, news reports claimed GWB was doing this or that with one eye on the election, or things would be done to a timetable beneficial to his campaign. Shouldn’t the pres be concerned solely with the country and its population rather than himself and his chances of re-election.
I realise both these practices occur to greater or lesser extents in all democracies and I choose the US as a most obvious, most extreme example.
The American system is to be admired for allowing these things to be common knowledge, but why is there no concerted effort to put them right. Or are they not perceived as wrongs?
Campaign funding:
Why do you limit your criticism to big business? Big business’s donations are only one piece of the pie, and business isn’t even the largest donor, nor do all businesses have common interests. The biggest single political donor is the trial lawyers’ groups. I find that the public’s view of campaign financing is just a bit distorted. I recommend going over to opensecrets.org. You’ll find that campaigns are funded from such a wide variety of sources it’s not nearly as threatening as it seems.
I can’t really get a handle on the second part of your question because I don’t really see how it can be further explained or recommend any way to fix it.
One thing I can assure you is that the problems in American politics are universal. They are part of democracy, not part of the US specifically. And the only way to deal with these “problems” is to weaken democracy.
All I’m really asking is why people tolerate a pres who is partly preoccupied with his re-election when his job should be doing what is best for the country, no more, no less.
Would it be so difficult to outlaw vested interests and allocate an equal amount of airtime/funds to serious candidates?
To answer your OP directly, America’s plutocratic tendencies are simply not considered “wrong” enough, by enough people, to mandate the necessary reform (much to the puzzlement of most of the indutrialised democratic world).
The US electorate has somehow been convinced that “elitism” has nothing to do with money, but how you speak. Thus if you advocate financial reform in clear, articulate English you are an arrogant snob from the elite, whereas if you explain tax cuts benefitting only the rich in the language of an aphasic gibbon you are not elitist at all.
This article on $1500 hot dogs explores the issue. Fascinating, really.
**All I’m really asking is why people tolerate a pres who is partly preoccupied with his re-election when his job should be doing what is best for the country, no more, no less.
**
Oh, well, we aren’t. At least I hope we aren’t. Obviously, politics always plays a role but this administration is more obsessed with politics than any administration I’ve ever seen.
Would it be so difficult to outlaw vested interests and allocate an equal amount of airtime/funds to serious candidates?
How do you do that? You can probably constitutionally limit money donations. But it’s not really the money in politics, it’s what that money buys. That money buys ads. But that money can be spent on behalf of candidates just as easily as it can be spent by them. And then you get into areas of restricting political speech. McCain-Feingold already does this to some extent,and I think it’s going to be repealed soon, as people of all persuasions are finding they risk jail for speaking.
As for public financing, who decides what candidates are serious? Usually, whoever is currently in power. That means that we only make the problem worse by effectively outlawing the rise of third parties.
**To answer your OP directly, America’s plutocratic tendencies are simply not considered “wrong” enough, by enough people, to mandate the necessary reform (much to the puzzlement of most of the indutrialised democratic world).
**
How are their electoral systems different and how could they be implemented here without violating the 1st amendment?
And the reason it’s not considered wrong is because Americans prize liberty over all else. I think that’s healthy, actually.
adaher
They’re not, but the difference is perhaps cultural rather than constitutional. The US electorate, it seems, barely bats an eyelid when favour is so blatantly bestowed on corporations who have made a truly enormous financial contribution, which I feel is extremely hazardous to democracy.
Here in Britain, political contributions are more limited and the press, rightly, jumps on examples of the governmental “rewards” and trumpets them loudly to the public (eg. the Bernie Ecclestone affair, wherein the government held off a ban on tobacco advertising in motorsport after a generous pre-election donation), making governments that much more reticent in such dealings.
Still, admittedly, even here canvassers and lobbyists pay thousands for a seat at a dinner next to a minister, and this I find distasteful. But the sheer scale of the same activity in the US beggars belief.
Maybe that is the crucial difference.
I understand the regulatory conundrums you refer to adaher and maybe the media is failing to point out blatent cronyism. Which side do they donate to?
I’m just impressed with the amount of money involved and the openess of it all… which can be a good thing in a way. Better open than hidden.
One must remember thought that this kind of buying out politicians happens everywhere. President’s should be thinking about their country and not their re-elections too everywhere.
I am often amazed at what the American people would tolerate.
In fact, I have spent much of the past four years in a state of wonder about the fact that not only do the American people tolerate President Bush and his cabinet, but that otherwise sane people are apparently prepared to argue on his behalf, and even die to defend his right to screw us all sideways.
That’s democracy for you.
I don’t see how Bush’s desire to be reelected conflicts with his duty to do what is best for the nation. Instead it ensures that Bush’s definition of “best” isn’t totally out of touch with that of the electorate.
Could you give some examples of this please? I am constantly hearing accusations of this nature and I’m interesting in seeing some concrete examples. Not that I doubt that it happens to some degree, but not “blatantly.” So cough up some examples, in the interest of fighting ignorance and all that.
Hold on a second. Political donations from corporations were banned a century ago, weren’t they?
And I’m left scratching my head about the horrible crime of a politican doing popular things before he stands for reelection. Oh, the horrors! Imagine that, people in public service making people happy! What a scandal!
I’m interested to hear some examples of unethical acts politicans have taken shortly before elections to please the public, and why this is a problem.
The problem with attempts to limit campaign contributions is that they may also limit your, and my, freedom of speech. If you and a large number of people who believe as you do wish to pay money to have a particular candidate’s virtues expounded upon in various advertising media, is it right to stop you? Are you simply concerned grass-roots citizens, or are you an evil lobbyist or special interest group? Does this mean you are attempting to “buy out” the candidate? Would it be evil if, after someone is elected with your help, he votes or acts as if he agrees with you? Is that not what you would expect?
Much of what campaign finance laws do is to require that you at least disclose who you are and how much you have contributed. Theoretically, the informed electorate would notice that Candidate X received a gazillion bucks from the Committee to Roast Whiny Children Alive and would adjust their votes accordingly. Theoretically.
Of course, there are just as many people who are equally mystified by whatever your political opinions are.
“Electorate.”
By this, one can assume you mean “the people who voted.”
Don’t even get me started on any conversation involving “George W. Bush” and “votes.”
As it is, he’s made it pretty clear that he does not care what the electorate has to say, aside from “here’s another vote for Bush.” I believe he remarked more than once in his last televised speech that he pays no attention to polls. This would seem to indicate a complete lack of interest in what the electorate wants. Or needs, for that matter.
His chums in the energy business, though… that would seem to be another matter…
The theory, I think, is that politicians should be concerned with reelection. That’s supposed to make them more responsive to the public’s wants. This assumes an informed and knowledgeable electorate, of course, which might be a tad optimistic.
All God’s chillun got vested interests.
What about timing, though?
Electorates seem to have short memories and if a leader implements a pleasing policy just before election rather than, say, a year previously when it would have been best for the nation that would be a problem.
Also, in the case of the US, which has taken on a global policing role, a decision that may please a section of American voters could have a disastrous effects for others elsewhere.
A paper editorial I read today suggested that the tacit approval given Sharon & Israel by Bush last week was, in part, a sop to Jewish voters. If this is true, and GWB is selling Middle East peace for re-election, I would suggest he deserves a jail term instead of a second term.
The bribes are simple lack of nerves. Nobody wants to take on all the richest corporations. Even if you could win the fight against big donations, you would become their target. Rich enemies give you the worst nightmares.
It would be an improvement to make them at least pick one side to buy.
The widespread practice of giving to both dems and pubs (that way you a sure to have bought one winner) is PLAINLY bribery.
But the thing is, not only corporations donate to campaigns. And the idea of corporations donating to campaigns is not as sinister as it seems.
First, let’s see who else is donating big money to campaigns: labor unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, the NRA, the ACLU, evangelists, pro-choice and pro-life advocates, the AARP…
Pretty much every cause imaginable donates to campaigns. Wherever you stand on a particular issue, you can bet there is an advocacy group lobbyist sitting down right now with a legislator having a chat.
Now, why is this a good thing? Because advocacy groups make it more efficient for 300 million Americans to get their voice heard. What’s more effective if you oppose the Patriot Act? Calling your representative, or donating $1000 to the ACLU? Eliminate the advocacy groups’ power, and all politicians can rely on is an unorganized cacophany of voices, and perhaps their pollsters.
Now, to address the issue of corporate power. Most Americans’ economic fates are tied in with corporations. So it is in the people’s interest for corporations to not be harmed by legislation.
But why must an advocacy group pay for the privilege of being heard?
Shouldn’t a leader be listening to his people without them having to bribe him to do so?
If an efficient system of representation can be built after the reps have paid their $1,000, surely one can be built without money changing hands.