What a Sad Commentary on Politics
Apparently, it is possible to write a whole New York Times article on Harold Ford considering a run for Senate in New York without mentioning a single position he has on any issue. Read it here. It's about donors and fundraising, not issues and constituencies. And even with all the political commentary in the article, I still cannot figure out if the presumed dissatisfaction with incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand is because she is too far to the Left or to the Right.
Looking for more disappointment? Consider these three excerpts:
Those who have expressed interest in a Ford campaign remain skittish about discussing it publicly, citing Ms. Gillibrand’s power over billions of dollars in financing around the state.
Why should an incumbent U.S. Senator have such power? Is there no better way to do our national budget than to give Senators walking-around money? Or how about this:
But he [Ford] has a formidable track record as a fund-raiser. During his Senate run [in Tennessee], he amassed about $15 million, with about a fifth of his contributions coming from New York.
I'm sure the good people of Tennessee appreciated the influence that out-of-staters had on their election. As I've said before, this should be banned.
In New York, Mr. Ford took a job as vice chairman of Merrill Lynch, where he cultivated close ties to many of the Wall Street executives who are now encouraging him to run.
Well, that's reassuring. I certainly wouldn't want New York to elect a Senator who hadn't cultivated close ties with Wall Street executives, who have been the paragons of virtue over the last couple of years.
If I could do one thing ...
If I could do one thing to our system to make it healthier and more democratic, then it would be to outlaw donations to elected officials by corporations that do not do business in their district and by private individuals that do not either reside or own property there.
Full time residents and businesses with their corporate headquarters (i.e. paying state and/or local taxes) could make unlimited donations to their Senators and/or Representatives. Take them on trips. Lavish them with perks. Whatever. They are their representatives.
Non-resident property owners and businesses with physical locations in the state and/or district can make donations up to some limit.
The same rules apply to PACs. No physical presence in, say, the State Capitol equals no donations and no TV ads into media markets in which they have no full-time employees.
Fund raising as a proxy for popularity
Statistically, I wonder if there's much correlation. The press clearly believes this is true; we all know of counter-examples (John Connolly comes to mind)...but I don't know if there's been any actual study of the question. They talk about fundraising because it's a fact in a phase of an election cycle where they have very few of them; the label "Democrat" says enough about someone's positions at this stage of an election. (Believes in balanced budgets, afraid of being labeled weak on terrorism, etc.)
The Daughter is taking Gov 10 this term...and she needs a final project...
The impact of campaign contrbutions
There are several studies that say the impact of campaign contributions in greatly exaggerated in the public mind. For instance, from three MIT professors, Why Is There So Little Money in Politics?".
The New York Times wrote about this...
~~~
With so much at stake, economists have long wondered why businesses and interest groups do not contribute more to political campaigns. [Total contributions to national campaigns in 1999 and 2000] were only 0.15 percent of annual federal spending.
For perspective, spending on advertising and promoting cigarettes was five times what was spent in all elections held in 2000.
There are two possible explanations why companies do not spend more: either they receive a great deal for what they already give, so contributing more is unnecessary, or they receive very little, so contributing more is fruitless.
In a provocative new study that effectively challenges the conventional wisdom, Stephen Ansolabehere, John de Figueiredo and James M. Snyder Jr., professors at M.I.T., come out decidedly in favor of the latter explanation...
Furthermore, research by Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago finds that additional campaign spending has a notably small effect on election outcomes.
In this environment, Professor Snyder surmises that companies find they get little in return for their contributions, so they contribute relatively little. The impact of corporate political action committees is greatly exaggerated, he says...
If corporate contributions have an insignificant effect on elections, why are so many tax breaks, loopholes and subsidies for special interests written into the law? The authors have a simple explanation — lobbying.
Organizations spend 10 times as much on lobbying as on direct campaign contributions, and they spend undisclosed millions more to establish special-interest research institutes, or so-called think tanks, which do not legally count as lobbying activities but are intended to manipulate public opinion and public policy.
... the tobacco industry provides a typical case study. With a major court case, taxation of cigarettes, and regulation of tobacco on the agenda, the industry clearly has much at stake in the political arena. Yet individuals and PAC's associated with the industry gave a total of just $8.4 million to political campaigns in the 2000 national election cycle, including soft money...
But the tobacco industry spent $44 million on lobbyists and $17 million on the Tobacco Institute in that cycle, suggesting that a much higher return is expected from these activities. The industry also devotes resources to lobby state legislatures, which often require much less disclosure than the federal government...
Some contributors probably do receive implicit favors, but these probably amount to relatively little compared with the size of the overall government budget or total campaign contributions.
"Legislators' votes depend almost entirely on their own beliefs and the preferences of their voters and their party," according to Professors Ansolabehere, de Figueiredo and Snyder...
For a sadder commentary on NY politics...
... just look at New York politics in action (for instance). Organizations that watch such things have named New York the state with the worst governance in the nation (including California). Any "import" politician is likely to be an improvement.
Indeed, the problem with taking a shot at Ford like this is assuming there are better alternatives. That his actions are a step down instead of a step up.
For another pretty blatant example along this line take Bloomberg, who contributed well over $100 million to himself to get re-elected mayor. I knew people in his campaign, and their number one objective in getting him elected over the Democrat in this overwhelmingly Democratic city was voter suppression -- keeping people from voting. The sent checks to countless Democratic, ahem, "clubhouses" around the city, and the people in the clubhouses somehow got the idea that if Bloomberg won they'd get another check.
Voter suppression is just a horrible way to run a democracy. Well, in theory it is. But in practice you have to look at what you are suppressing -- the electee that those "clubhouses" that are so eager to be bought would throw up on their own. Considering the hacks and crooks (see e.g, NY's last comptroller, the master of all the money, and all the people going to jail with him) that they produce ... give us Bloomberg!
(Of course Bloomberg is a life-long Democrat, but he's had to run as a Republican/Independent because as a successful, independent, private-sector businessesman, not in debt to the clubhouse hacks and owned by all the local party interest groups, he had *no chance whatever* of getting the party nomination, for all his money.)
"In New York, Mr. Ford took a job as vice chairman of Merrill Lynch, where he cultivated close ties to many of the Wall Street executives who are now encouraging him to run."
Well, that's reassuring. I certainly wouldn't want New York to elect a Senator who hadn't cultivated close ties with Wall Street executives, who have been the paragons of virtue over the last couple of years.
Now you lose me.
Do you object as strongly to Iowa's senators having close ties to the farming interests of that state (so they can serve us so well with their ethanol subsidy legislation)? And to Michigan's senators having such close ties to the auto industry (so they can serve us by producing "cash for clunkers")?
In our democracy, our elected representative represent their constituents -- who most definitely include the most important job-and-wealth producing industries within their states and districts. But that's not supposed to be true only in New York?
Yes, there is an old grammar school civics model of democracy where elected politicians act as impartial Platonic Guardians, disinterested in their home special interests, who pull their chins as they impartially contemplate only the greater good.
I'll be glad to have my senators sign on to acting by that model -- after your senators sign on to it, and the senators in Iowa and Michigan and the other 46 states do too.