In the latest issue of the New Republic, a liberal political news magazine, there is an article on the disaster that is "McCain in '08". Basically, the article explains how McCain, who was once championed as the moderate Republican who was not a tool of the religious right, has lost any and all sense of direction, and is currently polling 4th among Republicans in California (conservatives who support gay rights, are pro-Choice, don't own a gun, and believe in the crackpot liberal communist theory of Global Warming). While the article all but nails down McCain's coffin, what is really noteworthy of the article is its depiction of the almost parasitic relationship between politics and money. Politicians need money to run ads, to get votes, and annoy people, and tell lies about each other, and appeal to the lowest common denominator of American society, and win the election, and then throw a party for their contributors, where they will ask for more money so that they can run ads four years from now and tell more lies in order to throw another party. Ironically, it appears as though McCain's most noteworthy legislative accomplishment, the commendable but inadequate McCain-Feingold Bill , will be what kills his last hope for the White House.
The infamous organization Democracy Matters, along with numerous other grassroots organizations, have organized a movement for publicly financed elections. Essentially, the movement calls for a $6 a person tax every year to fund federal elections, giving members of the two major parties an equal share of the money to use for campaign expenditures. Inevitable problems lie regarding third party candidates and independents, as well as the fact that federal financing of elections does not necessarily rid of the irritations that campaigns bring. But still, money is too serious a threat to democracy to allow for the status quo to continue.
Another idea that I first read about in an article published by the TMQ (Gregg Easterbrook) of ESPN and Brookings Institute, is to dramatically increase the salaries of Congressman, say, from $165,200 (or slightly less than three times the salary of the average American worker), to about $1 Million. Then, pass radical legislation prohibiting any and all forms of contributions to Congressmen. The theory posits that this would attract more qualified people to the realm of politics (the Mark Cubans, Henry Paulsons and Michael Bloombergs of the world), who would not be tempted by the allure of money, and hopefully, we would wind up with an overall decrease in government spending, and a drastic decrease in pork barrel spending since Congressmen would no longer feel pressured to deliver desirable legislation for their campaign contributors.
Of course, all of this debate surrounding campaign finance reform is irrelevant as long as the Supreme Court continues to consider limitations on money as being unconstitutional limitations on an individuals freedom of speech (Buckley v. Valeo). People that know me well know that I am a big supporter of the Supreme Court. As in other cases, the Supreme Court's position is easy to understand. Why should citizen involvement in government be considered a bad thing? In the end, the blame lies with greedy and corrupt Congressmen. I never understood why the media vilified Jack Abramoff to such a degree, when really, all he was doing was buying a Congress that was for sale. If you know that a Congressman will pass legislation that will greatly boost your business if you give him a few thousand dollars to get him elected, would anyone else honestly say they wouldn't have acted the same way? Oh well, I guess the blame shouldn't lie with Congress, but rather with us, ridiculously stupid Americans who elect corrupt Congressman.
