Buying Votes and Government Funding of Election Campaigns

[Lee Hustead]

On Buying Votes and Government Funding of Election Campaigns— If money is “nothing more nor less than a means for exchange of goods or services”, (deferred when money is saved)  then obviously when an individual or organized entity provides financial support to a political entity it is for the purchase of present or future services (laws and votes). It is no different than buying the services of a mechanic or doctor. We individually or collectively provide financial political support because we expect continuing or new political support in accordance with a candidate’s (or political party’s) stated positions on issues, or their averment to continue along past political lines. Thus it is obviously also true that big money buys political bias in and of government for the benefit of self. We and big money each buy the vote of our preferred candidates, but big money buys more, more influence over more offices. Big money ultimately derives from the pockets of consumers, that is from business profits and the wages/commissions/stock-holdings of its high earners. So consumers (including the lady buying milk for her baby with food stamps) pay for representation that they often do not endorse (precisely because it supports interests contrary to that of the consumer) and then they may pay again for the same political position when they make an individual political contribution for a political entity opposed to the money positions on the same issues. One might think then that public funding of elections would gain acceptance and predominance in a democracy but it has not worked that way in the USA (probably nowhere).  Extant politicians (could not have been elected without big money) put enough “big money” favoritism or flaws into such legislation as to promote its immediate or eventual failure while at the same time they can say they voted for the legislation. Supreme courts have often, if not predominantly, found against such legislation, even when adopted by ballot initiatives (and how did they gain their power?). 

Will it ever be possible to achieve government based on one person one vote equivalence after money has once been allowed on the political chess board?

Big money is fond of saying (obliquely of course) that their money represents one person one vote, you bought their fossil fuel product so obviously you approve. You vote with your pocket book with every purchase of their goods or services, so when big oil, big medical or lobbyists (or any other product/service category) spend money on elections, it’s the result of your democratic decisions with your pocket-books (so they imply). Since their money thus represents your interests their political contributions fairly represent the interests of consumers and should not be constrained. And now we have the US Supreme court declaring that money is speech, and corporations are people whose speech cannot be constrained.

Worse yet, politicians propose to fix the Citizens United (and related supreme court abominations) with amendments that declare that the federal legislature has constitutional authority to constrain corporate funding. Should we or should we not expect the same buried preferences and flaws that would benefit their election funding?

This is bad constitutional thinking so it is fortunate there is no possibility of its approval by 3/4ths of the state legislatures, now predominantly under control of the GOP (28/17/5).