Saturday
Oct312009
Politics and Money: Should the Big-Bucks US Campaigns Concern Britain?
Saturday, October 31, 2009 at 8:12
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
In the 1940s and 1950s, my family looked forward to the arrival of so-called care packages from our better-off relatives in New York. The goodies were marvellous. Chocolate was very scarce in those days. Hence, I was led to believe that all Americans enjoyed abundance, whereas all Brits could look forward to was rationing and penury.
I think of those care packages and wonder if British politicians like Prime Minister Gordon Brown and opposition leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg look longingly towards America. In the United Kingdom, campaign spending is limited and closely monitored and regulated, but political parties manage to get themselves heavily into trouble and debt at election time. To repair the damage, the major parties have acted like shiftier financial advisors. “Don’t 'give' us the campaign contribution, Mr. X, lend it to us and then we don’t have to declare it.” If a Mr. Tony Blair thought up this clever little ruse, maybe he should be taking a more active role with J. P. Morgan.
Yet this British manoeuvring is child's play to the sleights-of-hand in the US, where American campaign finance laws do not work.
As a result of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 1st Amendment that money equates to free speech, it is almost impossible to restrain what American politicians do to raise funds and how much they spend promoting themselves. There have been valiant efforts to exercise control, most recently the McCain-Feingold statute, but the “soft money” ruse can get around pretty well every regulation with little effort. There is also an exception that a candidate may finance himself, something that has been a distinct advantage to Michael Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is running for re-election as New York City mayor. It is reported that so far he has spent $85 million of his own money on his campaign and it is estimated that he will spend a total of $140 million before Election Day on 3 November, election-day. In his three New York City elections, he will have parted with $250 million or more. Not that will bankrupt him --- Bloomberg is said to be worth $16 billion.
There is a major plus to this expenditure. Mayor Bloomberg’s $1 million a day on advertising, trave,l and entertainment goes directly into the New York City economy. New York consumerism receives a welcome boost at election time, and Bloomberg's campaign also offers employment to more than a hundred people.
But is there not a minus? Is there not the toxic element that if you are not mega-rich, you don’t stand a chance against an opponent with mega-bucks. The even playing field turns into more than a sloping pitch. It becomes a ski piste.
Bloomberg is already a two-term incumbent. So why does he feel the need to spend so much on re-election, rather than rely on the eight-year record of his administration? Yale political science professor Jennifer Stern comments, “I have never seen anything like this – it’s off the charts. He’s in a league of his own.”
Returning across the water, what if super-rich Brits, or those from abroad with interests here who consider naturalisation as British citizens, seek political office? Would they find ways around our election laws to buy their seats at the high political table? I like it that our politicians have to account for every penny at election time and woe betide them if they overspend. I also like it that we don’t have “soft money” distinctions. I warm to the fact that £10 million is a regarded as a large fortune by our political parties.
I wonder whether a majority of New York City voters are feeling the same about now?
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
In the 1940s and 1950s, my family looked forward to the arrival of so-called care packages from our better-off relatives in New York. The goodies were marvellous. Chocolate was very scarce in those days. Hence, I was led to believe that all Americans enjoyed abundance, whereas all Brits could look forward to was rationing and penury.I think of those care packages and wonder if British politicians like Prime Minister Gordon Brown and opposition leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg look longingly towards America. In the United Kingdom, campaign spending is limited and closely monitored and regulated, but political parties manage to get themselves heavily into trouble and debt at election time. To repair the damage, the major parties have acted like shiftier financial advisors. “Don’t 'give' us the campaign contribution, Mr. X, lend it to us and then we don’t have to declare it.” If a Mr. Tony Blair thought up this clever little ruse, maybe he should be taking a more active role with J. P. Morgan.
Yet this British manoeuvring is child's play to the sleights-of-hand in the US, where American campaign finance laws do not work.
As a result of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 1st Amendment that money equates to free speech, it is almost impossible to restrain what American politicians do to raise funds and how much they spend promoting themselves. There have been valiant efforts to exercise control, most recently the McCain-Feingold statute, but the “soft money” ruse can get around pretty well every regulation with little effort. There is also an exception that a candidate may finance himself, something that has been a distinct advantage to Michael Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is running for re-election as New York City mayor. It is reported that so far he has spent $85 million of his own money on his campaign and it is estimated that he will spend a total of $140 million before Election Day on 3 November, election-day. In his three New York City elections, he will have parted with $250 million or more. Not that will bankrupt him --- Bloomberg is said to be worth $16 billion.
There is a major plus to this expenditure. Mayor Bloomberg’s $1 million a day on advertising, trave,l and entertainment goes directly into the New York City economy. New York consumerism receives a welcome boost at election time, and Bloomberg's campaign also offers employment to more than a hundred people.
But is there not a minus? Is there not the toxic element that if you are not mega-rich, you don’t stand a chance against an opponent with mega-bucks. The even playing field turns into more than a sloping pitch. It becomes a ski piste.
Bloomberg is already a two-term incumbent. So why does he feel the need to spend so much on re-election, rather than rely on the eight-year record of his administration? Yale political science professor Jennifer Stern comments, “I have never seen anything like this – it’s off the charts. He’s in a league of his own.”
Returning across the water, what if super-rich Brits, or those from abroad with interests here who consider naturalisation as British citizens, seek political office? Would they find ways around our election laws to buy their seats at the high political table? I like it that our politicians have to account for every penny at election time and woe betide them if they overspend. I also like it that we don’t have “soft money” distinctions. I warm to the fact that £10 million is a regarded as a large fortune by our political parties.
I wonder whether a majority of New York City voters are feeling the same about now?
Reader Comments (6)
Even as this esteemed site is titled, "enduring America," my fellow Americans may need a cultural translator for a few of the phrases "put into play."
Like this one: "The even playing field turns into more than a sloping pitch. It becomes a ski piste."
I gather a piste refers to a ski slope and a sloping pitch has something to do with football, er, "soccer" -- to which Americans generally would wonder, so what's the difference between a flat and a sloping pitch, and why get so "piste" off about it? :-}
Since you started with the sports metaphors, let's hit this softball back over the fence. (the short one at the new Yankee stadium)
New Yorkers right now are largely transfixed not by politics, not by Bloomberg's "off the charts" political spending, but by the "world" series.... hoping that once again Baseball land will "properly" realize (what a Dickinson law professor of mine from NYC once opined in the middle of Torts) that the rest of baseball exists for one reason -- to provide entertaining fodder for the Yankees to beat up on in the "World" Series.
This is a team with a $210 million payroll, where bloated "pitchers" get paid around $5,000 per pitch (sic), where "A-Rod" gets say $64,000 for each time he goes to bat (to try to hit "pitches").
Do working class Yankee fans complain about such "off the chart" salaries? Not exactly. They seem to view it as "you get what you pay for," that "we are the world." They seem chagrined only when A-Rod, thus far, is baffled by relatively "cheap" Phillie pitching. (That doesn't make "cents" to a New Yorker who presumes money by "right" ought to trump...all.)
NY culture seems to revel in excesses (getting it confused with "successes") of money, and in the land of Lehman Brothers, Enron, Merrill Lynch, Wachallovia, and AIG, where Bernie made-off with their money, pride goeth mightily before a fall.
But will such falls really change things? Will New York money ever be kept out of politics? Not any more I anticipate than out of baseball.
Scott
(disclosure - a Phillie fan living in Hoo'ville, VA who can still "pitch it" against Gotham's Goliaths with the best of 'em)
Scott,
While being objective and neutral as always, you might guess where my sympathies lie for tonight's World Series Game 3.
S. (Member of Red Sox Nation)
oh, yes, yes... agreed. we phanatic phans must be phair & balanced. :-} ~ escott (also member of Ruhi-nation)
I sweated blood, yes blood, to write this article, yet for reasons beyond me, it has developed into a Phillies love fest. What can I say? Go Vikings!
The unofficial rule of Enduring America at the moment is that at least 50% of comments sections must develop into a baseball-related love/hate fest...
As Democrats of the Democratic Party, we are joining together in seeking reform within the Democratic Party.
Many of our elected representatives within the Democratic Party are no longer following in the time-honored footsteps laid down by the founding fathers of our great Nation. More importantly, we as democrats see our elected representatives within the Democratic Party abandoning the values and principles as set forth within the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
Nonetheless, this is only the beginning of our problems as Democrats, for the current Democratic Party leadership is tainted by corruption and being taken over by Socialists. These Socialists are clearly a threat to everything we hold sacred in America, and they are gaining evermore control over our Democratic Party, our Nation, and the American people.
Despite this, we as Democrats can restore control of the Democratic Party back to the party members. All we need to do is cut off donations to the local, state, and national headquarters of the Democratic Party, and to make sure the donations are made directly to patriotic and honorable Democratic Party candidates that are not corrupt and/or Socialist.
So please help spread the message to everyone of our fellow Democrats. Also, don't forget to contact and request the Unions and other outside contributors to follow our lead as patriotic Americans.
Thank you, and God Bless America.
Web site: http://www.democraticreformparty.com
Blog site: http://blog.democraticreformparty.com