Author: Margie

My friend Mary forwarded me a article from the Center for Public Integrity regarding their latest edition of The Buying of the President. Subtitled “Who Bankrolls Bush and his Democratic Rivals — and What They Expect in Return,” it basically says that big corporations (and PACs and unions) “buy” the Presidential election via their contributions.

It’s an interesting article, detailing the ties between business and candidates, etc. But the implication it makes — that candidates are basically bought — is a difficult one to establish beyond inuendo.

Part of the problem in any such analysis is figuring out causality. It’s easy to say, “Company X gave Candidate Y $ZMM, then Candidate Y supported Bill W favored by Company X.” But it’s a lot more difficult to figure out whether X aided Y because they knew Y was already disposed in their favor on W, or whether Y supported W because X gave them money, or a combination thereof. Was it a quid pro quo, or simply supporting candidates the company liked?

You can argue then that, regardless, X is “buying” the *election* — but how true is that? If you take the position that people will vote for Candidate Y over Candidate A because they see twice as many Y commercials as A commercials, that’s an incredibly cynical view of the concept of democracy.

If Bush wins, will it be because he’s raised gobs of cash? Or because people like the message they hear from him and what he’s done, or like it better than what they hear from the other side? I seriously doubt either candidate will lack the ability to run adverts in most markets, and, frankly, if the American public votes based on who ran the nicest commercial during their favorite show, they deserve exactly what they get.

Part of the problem is that these sorts of stories usually imply, if not state, that the solution is somehow to level the playing field. Reduce hard money. No, reduce soft money. Reduce all money. Require every candidate (every candidate?) to spend only the same amount of money. Restrict commercial time. Create some sort of impartial board of governors to carefully make sure that each side has the same amount of money … talent … air time … opportunity to present messages … only says the right things …

The problem is that, taken to extreme (and campaign finance laws are always about finding the extremes, to get around them), it’s very, very difficult to spot where you cross the line between restricting money and restricting speech. The courts have been debating that one for years, but it seems to me that it’s an inevitable cost. And it’s not clear that it’s a cost worth paying.

Certainly the need to raise money for political campaigns is something that most politicians bitch about, at least the ones I’ve ever heard talk about it. The problem is, I’ve yet to see a cure that’s better than the illness.

But then, one might argue, big business ends up controlling the election — if you posit the (again, cynical) view that the only basis for votes is how much money is spent. There’s a threshold there, certainly, in competition between the candidates. Someone with only $20k to spend for a Presidential campaign is going to be SOL. But is there a significant difference in how well a candidate with $100MM can get his or her message across vs. someone with only $50MM?

Ah, but to get that $50MM, don’t businesses end up being involved? Well, yes and no. Certainly businesses will support individuals who they think will do what they’re looking for. That’s not always a bad thing — the idea that “What’s good for GM is good for the USA” is simplistic, perhaps, but not altogether untrue, either. Further, not all businesses have the same interests — and there are non-business entities, whether AFSCME or George Soros, who are also in the game.

And, ultimately, it’s also up to the American people. 198 million people in the US were registered to vote in 1998. If everyone who cared about the election gave $10 to their favorite candidate — heck, if they gave only $1 — it would dwarf the contributions from businesses, according to the CPI report.

And that’s probably enough nattering on the subject for the moment.