Because making decisions about the future of this country on the basis of personal profit is wrong. I can’t figure out a way to describe this reasoning that isn’t a tautology, but it is based on the exact same notion that kickbacks and bribery are wrong. Unfortunately, the only way I can describe why bribery is wrong is also a tautology: bribes are wrong because people in power should make merit-based decisions, not those based on lining their own pockets.
What do you think about bribery? Is it wrong, and if so, why?
ETA: the impact I’m worried about is that people will not pay attention to any issue and just vote based on who pays them. That puts more money into politics when I think we should be figuring out a way to moderate moneyed interests.
Okay, that’s not bad. As you say, it’s hard to distinguish this concept from bribery, so let’s look at that for a minute. Is there a genuine difference between giving politicians money to get themselves elected and giving them money to do whatever they want with?
If that were true, how could lobbyists give gifts? I know most of the money in politics is not “personal profit” on (sometimes rather thin) technicalities, but is anyone under the illusion that politicians don’t make personal profit on the basis of the office they hold? It seems to me that personal profit within certain lines is quite acceptable: as long as you accept and deal with the profit in culturally proscribed ways, you may benefit from it, but you have to maintain some sort of pretense that it’s not a direct payment to the individual.
I sometimes jump into political threads out of interest, not knowledge, so I’m prepared to be schooled on why the practices we have are not wrong but vote-buying is.
Why can’t you drive 90 mph on I-55? Because there is a law against it. It’s illegal. You can, of course, actually drive 90 mph until you are caught violating the law. Everything is legal unless there is a law against it.
You can also sell your vote. The only thing stopping you is the fear of getting caught violating the law.
To answer the 2nd question in the OP, it was decided that this would be a democratic republic. People would vote for whomever they wanted and the candidate with the majority of votes would then be the elected representative of those voters. Sounds pretty simple.
However, it would be possible for someone to compensate enough voters to vote for them based on the compensation instead of selecting the best candidate for the job. That would undermine the whole concept of a democratically elected government. Therefore, in an effort to discourage someone from buying the “actual” vote of anyone else, “they” made a law against selling/buying someones vote.
You can ask me to vote for you, you can surround my home with campaign posters, you can play recorded messages in my direction telling me what a great choce you would be (assuming you didn’t violate any laws accomplishing these tasks) but you haven’t actually bought my actual vote. When I enter the voting booth - the choice is still mine.
Campaign spending is not the same as buying my actual vote.
Right now, members of Congress may not receive any gift from a lobbyist. Previously there were limits of about $100 per year. Honorarium (payments for a politician to make a speech or write an article) has been banned for thirty years.
There are limited circumstances in which a lobbyist may pay for travel to and from official business – something like flying somewhere to attend a conference or something.
But lobbyists may make campaign contributions which can be used for a variety of campaign-related expenses. So, a lobbyist may not buy a senator lunch, but the lobbyist can give a senator a $2,000 check for the senator’s campaign fund at a lunch the senator is paying for.
Can I explain why these rules make sense? No. I think a lot of them are absurd.
But let’s consider a recent law which bans members of Congress from making stock market trades based on information that they get as a result of their official duties. For example, let’s remember the fall of 2008 when the stock market is tanking. Senator A meets with the Secretary of the Treasury to discuss the economic meltdown and two days later transfers his mutual fund to a safer investment. Senator B doesn’t have such a meeting, but reads in the newspaper that the economic news is bad, and does the same thing. Did one senator act unethically? Did neither? Did both? How do we know that Senator A based his decision on that meeting, rather than reading the news like everyone else?
You’re totally right that a lot of these rules are narrowly drawn and hard to justify. However, just because someone may or may not be getting away with something that’s in a moral gray area doesn’t justify rolling back all the rules and letting people literally take cash in exchange for official actions, including voting. That doesn’t make sense at all.
Those opposed to this seem to think that there would automatically be some mechanism in place to ensure the sold vote was cast for the proper candidate. I’m not so certain that would happen.
While I think both scenarios have the same outcome (undue influence of money in politics), there is a legal trick in the US that makes the situations inequivalent. People do not have a positive legal right to vote enumerated in the constitution, while they do have one to speak.
Doesn’t really matter. Let’s say the state of Indimichitonia is a key swing state in the 2016 elections. It’s razor close: the urban areas vote heavily Democratic, and the suburbs and rural areas are rock-solid Red.
If the big moneyed interests that control (insert party name here) start offering financial inducements for people to vote – not even vote for a candidate, but just vote at all – and target those endorsements to particular areas or precincts, they WILL be gaining an electoral edge. Current get out the vote efforts by campaigns or parties already work on this principle, except they do not actually pay people to vote. They just work to get people excited about the election, organize to take them to the polls, etc.
Now, if one party engages in this behavior and the other doesn’t, I don’t think that’s fair. If both sides do it, it’s just bringing more money into politics. Meanwhile, swing districts might not share in the windfall because the money will be funneled into preferred voting districts. You really want moderate voters to feel cheated by the electoral process because their neighbors two blocks over get $20 each for just going to the polls, but Mr. and Mrs. Rational Moderate Voter get nothing?
Sure, this idea to pay people to vote is a great idea. If you like multi-billion dollar electoral campaigns and finding new ways to anger responsible voters. The more I think about it, the worse idea it is.
Who gives a shit? I imagine most voters already feel cheated because the voters of the otherwise insignificant states of Iowa* and New Hampshire have two or three times as much influence on the presidential election than they do.
*okay, Iowa is significant for its agricultural productivity.
This is probably the closest to my thought process.
I know it is not legal (I posted the reference to avoid ‘is it legal of not’ debates).
Since striking those laws from the books would require an official act, there is no reason they can’t just put in a proxy system at the same time. Corporation use proxy voting for shareholders all the time. Now that we’re electing CEOs like Romney, why not just treat the American public like shareholders? Instead of dividends, you get the right to market your vote to the highest bidder.
My representative more closely represents the concerns of his campaign donors than those of his district. So, if he can essentially profit from his campaigning, why is it that the voter is blocked from profits?
Many people have complained about our options in this election cycle and said that they are not going to vote. I think that is sad. People in other countries risk real death on the election day for the opportunity to vote. Yet, in the US there is such a huge amount of voter apathy. I’m personally also disgusted with the options, but I will vote no matter what. But, since none of the candidates (local) have two brain cells to rub together, there is little hope that my vote will cause any change in the status quo. Under those conditions (and living in a swingy type district), I think I could at least get a couple of bucks for taking the time and fuel to go to the polling center.
I feel cheated because my representative can be bought for as little as $15k. I’ve watched some of the most disgusting wrangling to that ‘well connected’ companies can take advantage of the stimulus package and other programs that are intended to help start up companies.
Real World Example: Company A has been in business for 20+ years, stimulus for new start ups is offered, so Brother of Owner of Company A starts a business, gets a mega GRANT (not loan, GRANT) for his “start-up” business that happens to be the same type of business (and at the same address) as the family business Company A. ONE YEAR later, Company A “buys” the now prosperous start-up and folds it into Company A. My Representative did ON-SITE photo ops when they got the grant and then again when the newly prosperous company was ‘bought’ by the long term “local company.” Total new jobs created? About two.
Another Example: Company A operates ovens that are now illegal and need remediation. My representative finagles it so that they illegal ovens are sold to the county, who now owns a toxic site. The county spends $250k to clean up the ovens and bring them into compliance. Now the county owns newly renovated ovens/factory and for some reason sells it back to the original owner for $1 (not a typo, there… one dollar!). The owner had litterally two decades to clean up those ovens. If they county wanted to sell it to anyone for a dollar, it should have been the employees who’d been working there under the toxic conditions. NOT back to the same owner who couldn’t be bothered to invest in upgrading equipment so that it wasn’t toxic to employees and neighbors. BUT, my representative jumped on that photo op!
Nice. If only Susan B. Anthony and the other suffragettes had uttered such noble words about our participatory democracy. I can see the scene in the courtroom now, as Anthony is hauled before a judge to answer for the crime of voting in a Federal election:
ANTHONY: “It is true, Your Honor, I voted in the election, a right that is due all Americans–”
JUDGE: “Eh, who gives a shit? Ever since California joined the Union, this country is going down the fucking tubes. It’s like people in Missouri shouldn’t have even showed up to vote.”
ANTHONY: “But Your Honor, the 15th Amendment to the Constitution says that—”
JUDGE: “Blah blah blah. Who the hell cares. I don’t even care about this case. Politicians suck, the government sucks, elections suck, and you, Mrs. Anthony, you suck too.”
ANTHONY: “But judge, this country is borne of sacrifice and greatness! The principles laid out by our Founding Fathers and carried through by President Lincoln, of securing a government of the people, by the people—”
JUDGE: “I don’t care, that guy over there doesn’t care, and your momma doesn’t care. This country is screwed and you know it, so let’s not even try to make things better. I’m bored. Get out of my sight! Oh, and you’re guilty.”
Thank you for reminding me of the noble roots of this country with your insightful riposte of “Who gives a shit?” And they say that intellectualism is dead!
Wow, I can’t pull one over on you. If American scholarship has reached a single conclusion on Anthony’s legacy, it is that Susan B. Anthony only looked out for Susan B. Anthony. She would have voted for an alcoholic, wife-beating, segregationist Democrat in a second if it meant another nickel in her pocket.
Don’t laugh, a nickel was a lot of money in those days.
I, and a lot of other people, give a shit. It’s your appathy that would have no bearing on other people’s opinion of who they should vote for. One person - one vote. Even in “insignificant” States.
