Category | Op Ed

If money could vote

Published on January 15, 2008 by The Sentinel

     Recently, ex-president Bill Clinton expressed excessive concern
over Michael Bloomberg’s potential white-house run and self-financed
campaigns by saying, “We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme
Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right
to free speech than the rest of us.”


           

     He complains that such spending “violates the spirit of campaign finance reform.” When we glance into ol’ Bill’s wallet, however, we find that he is not exactly headed for the soup kitchen. Actually, he just happens to be filthy rich from speaking fees and investments. How is it that he fits into the “rest of us” category? You would think that it might come across as a bit hypocritical, since he believes that campaign contributions are free speech, and yet he supports publicly-funded elections.

            Amidst the cries of “vote buying,” the question must be asked: Does one only need money to win an election? If so, then why didn’t hopefuls such as Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Steve Forbes spend their way to the presidency? The fallacy of hating money in politics is the belief that because candidates have money to pay for organization and ads, they will gain followers and “buy” the election. According to this, forget a candidate’s policy positions, because money is most important to voters. Right? When was the last time you voted for someone because they had the most money? In the age of 24/7 media, advertisements and organization can only go so far. Every advertisement aired on TV gets a review and fact check from the New York Times along with other publications and web sites. What’s so different from a television ad paid for by a PAC (Political Action Committee) and an editorial or political talk show? Both could be as negative, positive, or unfair to any candidate. So why regulate one and not the other?

    The fact that money never wins elections was also shown in the 2006 Congressional races and the 2008 Republican Primary. Think of the conveniently recent Mike Huckabee win in Iowa. Despite the fact that Romney outspent Huckabee 15 to one, he was smoked by Huckabee; beaten by nine points. For Nebraska’s Senate seat, Ben Nelson (D) was outraised by $5.8 million by Pete Ricketts, (R) and still won. For the Senate race in Ohio, Sherrod Brown (D) defeated the incumbent Mike DeWine (R) despite being outraised by $6 million. But why care about the facts when you can demagogue an issue for political gain?

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to scrap these worthless campaign finance regulations and just mandate transparency? If you know where a politician is getting their money from and believe they are corrupted or misusing it, then do not vote for them. But instead of this common sense solution, many liberals advocate for publicly-funded elections to solve the problem. You don’t mind having your tax dollars pay for the campaigns of Mike Gravel or Alan Keyes do you? (Not to mention the Congressman from Mars who shall remain nameless.)

     A good example of setting limits or penalties on money is seen in major league baseball. There is a luxury tax for spending over a certain limit. Only the Red Sox and Yankees spend over that limit and both made the playoffs. But consider, out of the eight teams to make the playoffs in 2007, three of them were at the bottom in the league in team salary. Arizona is 26th, Cleveland is 23th and Colorado 25th out of thirty. Cleveland would beat the Yankees 3-1 and come one game away from the World Series losing to the Red Sox in Game seven. Colorado swept the playoffs to the World Series, but eventually lost. The amount of money a team spends, does not necessarily make a better team, just like the amount of money a candidate spends doesn’t make a better or more popular candidate.

            Baseball, like politics, is ruled by the same misunderstanding of money’s role in making a good team, or candidate. Money without restrictions is not a problem as long as there is full transparency. I should be able to donate as much money as I want to a candidate. Even Bill Clinton thinks that is part of my freedom of speech. After all, when was the last time you saw money vote?