In his otherwise relatively accurate answer to this Electoral College question, John Cates wrote:
The only fly in the ointment in modern politics is when extraordinarily wealthy people without merit manage to buy their way into office. It doesn’t always work, but too often, it does.
Here is my comment to John Cates:
Constitutionally, I think this answer is well explained, and based on that I upvoted it despite certain misgivings. E.G. I completely disagree that the Georgia election law is “horrendously discriminatory.”
I also believe that the following statement needs clarification:
“The only fly in the ointment in modern politics is when extraordinarily wealthy people without merit manage to buy their way into office. It doesn’t always work, but too often, it does.”
Taken literally, it almost never happens that any politician buys his way into office. There was a recent case in New Jersey in which a City of Hoboken city council candidate was convicted of trying to buy his way into office by paying voters $50 bribes for their mail-in ballots. Vote buying does happen. But this is not a “fly in the ointment” of our political system. Electoral bribery has always been illegal. And it is very rare.
Much more common, and more insidious in this welfare state era of massive redistributive government, is a different form of politicians “buying their way into office” -- or buying their way to reelection -- and its all legal. Again in New Jersey, Governor Phil Murphy, who is up for reelection in 2021, conspired with Democrats in the legislature to, in effect, buy his and legislative Democrats reelection—with taxpayer money. In 2020, they passed a budget bill that would send $500 rebate checks to most NJ voters right before the 2021 election. One Republican justifiably accused Murphy of “looking to buy his reelection with your money.” It wasn’t only Republicans. Tom Moran, editorial page editor for the Star-Ledger, NJ’s largest newspaper and generally Left-leaning, called the gimmick a bribe masquerading as a tax credit.
But the charge that “extraordinarily wealthy people without merit [can] manage to buy their way into office” is usually used to rationalize restrictions on private spending on political campaigns and causes. Such restrictions are unconstitutional violations of free speech. No matter how much money a candidate has to spend on his own campaign, he must still persuade enough voters to support him. In the 53 voting years since my first vote in 1968, I’ve never encountered anyone who justified his/her vote based on a candidate’s net worth or campaign spending account. When people fill out their ballots, I doubt very many have the amount the candidates spent on their campaigns on their minds. If a wealthy candidate manages to win, no guarantee, it is because voters were persuaded—not an easy task, even for deep-pocketed individuals. For every Donald Trump who manages to get elected, there are many more Michael Bloombergs or Tom Steyers who flop. Yes, buying their way into office happens. But it’s not wealthy individuals merely exercising their free speech rights. It’s corrupt politicians literally bribing people, in both lawful and unlawful ways.
It’s true that modern campaigns require lots of money. Candidates, after all, have to reach a mass audience. But there is little substance or evidence to the charge that wealthy individuals have any special advantage in elections. Candidates have myriad ways to raise money. Even if they did, so what? It’s still up to voters to decide. There is no credibility to the charge that political spending constitutes buying into office.
Related Reading:
QUORA: ‘Why does the Electoral College of the United States of America exist?’
Voting laws: How Georgia compares to other states -- By David Wickert forThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1 comment:
It's the criminal parts of our "mixed economy" regime that makes this "legal" buying of one's way into office that "Governor" Murphy engages in possible. It's "legal" in terms of the legislation, regulations and judicial decisions establishing the criminal parts of our "mixed economy" regime. But, made possible only by those, it's still illegal, as are those legislations, regulations and judicial decisions. That whole works is illegal, criminal.
Law, government, due process and politics can't make it legal. Playing the "game", going by the "rules" of the game", rolling with the punches, playing ball, etc. isn't sportsmanship whether good or bad. It's not a game. It's the sinister intent of criminals. Playing or compromising with them is surrender to them.
Law, government, due process and politics ain't no game, either, to let crooks play with to subvert it for their sinister intent. They play no games with us. If we hand them even a little piece of power, they won't go by rules, or laws, of anything. They'll use that power ON us.
Law, government, due process and politics is a business and it's a business like steel, coal or auto production, but not exactly like in the demand and supply of a free market. Backed by physical force, it is a COMMAND, no deals made, put to those who start ACTING like anything outside the free market.
There's more behind it than physical force. There's knowledge in terms of human life, meaning the individual unit, the integral seamless whole of which consciousness is a physical part. "In terms of human life" means, simply, knowledge. If it's not in terms of human life, it's not knowledge. 2+2=4. It does? So what? Who cares, except in terms of human life?
It's only human life that makes thought and knowledge thought and knowledge, not just incoherent internal randomness and external noise and chicken scratching. And only human life makes conceptual knowledge possible, and only that makes morality and, so, moral choice, possible. Morality is nothing but a form of knowledge, like physics, chemistry or math.
Ultimately, unalienable individual rights comes solely from knowledge, including moral knowledge, in terms of human life. And, although knowledge of the human in humans is conceptual, it's knowledge, not opinion. And knowledge of Homo-sapiens is of sensory perception, not opinion.
Law, government, due process and politics is a COMMAND backed by physical force and the authority of knowledge, including morality applied to the proper use of physical force in human relations. Let nobody subvert and pervert that authority by giving them, in ANY way, power they will use to command otherwise. Somebody gave, and gives, them that power. But, let's not now play with them. Let's not play with people like Murphy or with those who gave, and gives, him power.
Post a Comment