I’ve been having an ongoing argument with a friend on the Western Shore about contributing to political campaigns. She contributes. I don’t.
My friend’s contributions are small. She is retired and an enthusiastic supporter of one political party over the other. This year, with passions running high, she has made several contributions, some to individual candidates and some to political action committees, including a national committee run by a national political party.
Nobody I know would call my friend’s contributions corrupt. To the contrary, many would express admiration that a person of less than unlimited means sacrifices on travel, dining out, and even classical music concerts to support what she calls “the good people.” Other times she just says, “democracy.”
I have not tried to dissuade my friend from making contributions but instead argue that corporate and special interest political contributions are poisoning democracy. My friend disagrees and argues that because “the other side” is the beneficiary of large contributions from corporations and special interests, “our side” needs to do the same thing.
My problem is it is all but impossible to regulate political contributions. Should we ban candidates from donating to their own campaigns? How about spouses of candidates, or children?
I don’t buy the argument, relied upon by the Supreme Court suggesting that political contributions are a right protected under the Constitution.
This year, I have been nauseated by reports that the likes of Elon Musk are planning to pour millions into advertising for Republican candidates in the hopes of stemming what appears to be a pretty massive “blue wave.” I also have been troubled by reports of what might be charitably called “heavy-handed fundraising” by President Trump and his allies. I am even more troubled by President Trump’s recent promise of a “Trump dividend” of $5,000 for each adult citizen, premised on the Republicans retaining control of the House and Senate.
I see corruption, and lots of it. I also sense the stench of corruption in the expectation of many big Republican donors that their massive donations will secure victory on November 3rd despite the President’s low approval ratings and signs that he is off-the-rails.
I would like to see all money banned from political campaigns, a position that will surely earn me dismissal as naïve by many readers. When I discuss getting rid of money in elections, I am told campaigning is impossible without it and that if such a ban existed without federal funding substituting for private contributions, only rich people would be able to run for Congress. Obviously, my idea needs a bit more work.
In pondering a democracy not undermined by money, I came across a quote from Plato. Long before America saw the likes of Trump, Plato opined: “It is an essential feature of the just state that the wealthy be kept away from political power and that the politically powerful be kept away from wealth.”
Franklin Roosevelt wrote, “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”
I also found a quote by David Korten, a former professor at the Harvard Business School: “The dark side of capitalism is that it tends to subvert democracy. When money is allowed to buy political power, the voice of the people is silenced.”
I could go on, but lest you assume that I am condemning just Republicans, I also condemn special interest money supporting Democrats. Money supporting progressives and purporting to promote the public good works the same way that money supporting repeal of environmental regulations, healthcare, and other things most of us consider beneficial works by buying votes with ads on TV and the internet, yard signs, and rallies.
Here on the Eastern Shore, we have a Democrat seeking to unseat Andy “Handgun” Harris. Dan Schwartz is refusing PAC and special interest contributions. Congressman Harris isn’t. He has received contributions from the likes of multiple pharmaceutical companies, Northrop Grumman and various energy companies, big tobacco, and even the GEO Group, a corporation that runs private prisons. Dare I suggest Harris, when not kowtowing to Donald Trump, is more answerable to these donors than his constituents?
I already know who I will vote for in November. Special interests can’t buy my vote. I turn off the TV or ignore campaign commercials when I see them. You should do the same.
Don’t let anyone buy your vote. Money in politics is stifling democracy by allowing the rich, special interests, and corporations to buy politicians. Don’t be fooled again.
14 Responses
Thank you, John Dean. Good advice that I intend to follow.
Thank you for reading my piece. Let’s hope everyone gets out and votes–on the issues–in the mid-terms.
Thank you Mr. Dean …daily texts, emails, phone calls from candidates and organized groups for months on end are way more than anyone should have to endure.
Democracies the world over legally restrict political campaigns to a matter of weeks or months. The United Kingdom limits campaigns to 25 working days and bans paid political television and radio advertisements. South Korea, Chile, Australia and Canada among others limit campaigns to weeks. Argentina allows 60 days for campaign ads, campaigning allowed only in the final 35 days before election. Mexico sets a 90-day cap on campaigns, preceded by a 60-day pre-campaign where parties must select their nominees. I Googled this information. There’s more.
Short campaign periods could lower the cost of running for office for public-spirited citizens, prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from buying multi-year campaigns, enable working folks to run for office without having to lose major time away from their jobs and families.
Thank you for your comment. I agree with you entirely that short campaign periods would lower the cost of running for office and decrease opportunities for special interests and individuals to “buy” elections. In my opinion, the opportunity for voters to learn the issues and positions of the candidates would not suffer.
Hope, I totally agree with time limits on political campaigns. How many times does one have to hear the same thing to get the message across? A 90 day period should suffice for a general election. I’m a candidate and have found that’s just about right.
This article is spot on. Another good quote on the subject from Louis Brandeis, anti-trust lawyer and Supreme Court Justice: “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
Thanks for the comment. Justice Brandeis was a wise man. Just imagine what he would be saying/writing today as Musk and others start pouring millions into close races to elect GOP candidates that will do their bidding.
Having wasted time deleting endless requests for donations, Mr Dean’s article mirrored my thoughts, Thank you. I spend time in the UK and relate to Hope Harrington comments about other countries limitations.
One of the reasons I quit donating to campaigns is that once you make a donation–even a single dollar–your name gets circulated among candidates from the same party and you get deluged with emails, texts, and even robo-calls.
Thank you for reading my piece.
Outstanding, clear and concise.
We the people must work as one.
Protect our democracy.
Protect our constitution.
Protect our rights.
Morals, values and virtues must be the foundation of which to build from.
“A virtue is a morally good behavior, character trait, or quality of excellence that guides people to do what is right”.
Vote.
Thank you for your comment. Much appreciated.
I’ve always considered campaign fund raising a necessary evil for candidates to but yard signs, printed materials and newspaper/online ads and the like, essentially from mom and pop contributors. In local and county elections, this system has worked fairly well, depending upon various candidates’ connections in communities.
Once you get to the US Congress level, it all changes and dark money from anywhere in the US will find its way to a battleground district where a millionaire zealot wants favorable legislation and a candidate is willing to oblige the donor. The issue of unlimited contributions and dark (unidentifiable) sources often deluge campaigns, has blown the roof off of our traditional election support standards.
Unless SCOTUS reverses itself on the Citizens United decision, one party will have to take the lead to drag the country back to a semblance of reasonable electoral spending limits. With the minority party surviving on unlimited dark money, and with their efforts to undermine the integrity of state and federal elections, Republican resistance will be unquestionably stiff toward limits on campaign finance.
I wonder how many nitwits will vote Republican to ensure their $5,000 rewards and how many others will believe Democratic party victories were fraudulent when Trump makes that abased claim. To think the future of American democracy rests on the integrity of a couple of ultraconservative Supreme Court justices is not a comforting thought.
Mickey, thanks for your comment. I agree with you that small donations, especially directed towards local candidates are not the heart of the problem. I’ve found that in some cases, the opportunity to make a donation helps build the enthusiasm of some voters for a particular candidate or issue.
I agree with you that Citizens United is the problem. If it takes a Constitutional Amendment to fix it, I would welcome that. Ideally the amendment would address the problem of very rich candidates (and we’ve had many in both parties) donating to their own campaigns, creating an advantage that would be created if the possibility of similarly large donations were closed for candidates without signficant wealth.
I would add that local elections, like the one for Talbot County Council, now see “Big Bucks” donors with interests aligned with National corporate strategies, and labels (MAGA). Our local streets and highways are exploding with very large, very red, political signage.
There are other parallels to our National politics too: one of the candidates is a convicted felon; we hear “culture war” issues raised rather than actual, local policies discussed; and many candidates espouse protecting open space and local farms and waterways only until the election is over. It doesn’t feel like Talbot Council is a local election anymore.