1) During the ratification debates there was a serious fight between the Madisonian idea that popular elections across large districts would result in producing better, more meritorious representatives of the people. Essentially, Madison believed that only someone with true merit and wisdom could convince a large disparate group of people to be their representative, and avoid corruption and demagoguery in the election process. On the other hand, Patrick Henry believed that this would create an aristocracy, as it is inconceivable that an enlightened poor man could ever defeat any rich man in an election, thus creating an aristocratic government protecting only aristocratic interests.
The only interesting point is that my professor pointed out that the new campaign finance laws have made it such that donors cannot give large sums of money to the enlightened poor man because of restrictions on individual donations. Individuals however, can spend as much money as they'd like on their own campaigns. Makes sense right? Not so much. Apparently the new wave of elections involves the political parties spending their time scouting out "Self-Funded Candidates", ie. Rich People, in order to ensure that there is enough money to run a campaign. Boiled down to obvious, yet inevitable essentials: Only rich people can run for office. The richer people will win office. There is not a shred of doubt that our government decisions are made completely by a wealth-based aristocracy.
As for the consequences, draw your own conclusions. There's plenty.
2) On a more interesting note, yet another dazzling display of journalism. Side-by-side with the Bush speech about the troop "surge" is this:
Really?
4 comments:
I agree w/ your analysis to some extent that today's politician must be rich. But what is really funny is when a rich SOB runs, spends a ton of his own money, and gets slaughtered (see Ricketts huge loss to Nelson in NE Senate seat).
DA
True...but it's also notable that Ben Nelson is worth over 6 million.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/
Sure, after a long and successful political and legal career...but I don't believe he started out w/ significant funds.
It has been proven that anyone no matter what background can suceed in politics-see Clinton.
W/ today's campaign finance laws, it does give the rich (like Ricketts) an advantage but only if the candidate himself is willing to spend his own money on the race. This is still fairly rare. If your argument is that up and comers do not have the connections to raise the funds like the rich, this is definately true. But this has always been true no matter what the campaign finance laws say. And at least w/ the caps, the rich or well connected can't rely on merely a few of their even richer friends to fund their campaign.
DA
Well, I think it's less about the campaign finance law and the possibilities that are the problem per se...I think it's that now because of the new campaign finance law, that it has driven the parties to begin searching for candidates very selectively, specifically seeking "Self-Funding Candidates."
I mean, Clinton was extraordinary in almost all respects...from childhood, to ability, to brilliance, to skill. So I think he's more of an exception than the rule.
Wait, you knew I was saying Ben Nelson's personal net worth was 6 million right? Not campaign money.
Post a Comment