A few years ago a former student asked what actions I would take if elected President of the United States. To be clear, I WOULD NOT TAKE THAT JOB, but I could offer a few ideas regarding America’s priorities. My next few posts will do just that.
TAKE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS
There’s an old saying of unknown origin: “Money is the lifeblood of politics”, but my favorite quote about money and politics was offered by former U.S. Senator Robert Byrd, who said: “It is money, money, money. Not ideas, not principles, but money that reigns supreme in American politics.”
In 2020 a record $14.4 billion was spent on American elections, twice the amount spent just four years earlier. Do you think we got our money’s worth? Do you believe we elected the very best Americans to mayoral positions, state legislators. county tax assessors, president, and all other elected positions? No? I didn’t think so.
We would probably agree that the obscene amount spent on elections is, to be kind, excessive, but you probably didn’t know that in 1907 Congress first addressed this issue by passing the Tillman Act limiting corporations and other similar entities from contributing to political campaigns. That law stood for about 70 years.
Here is how things went terribly wrong:
In Buckley v Valeo (1976) the Supreme Court ruled that portions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) were unconstitutional. In short, the Court ruled that some limits on campaign donations imposed by FECA violated the 1st Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech. I won’t bore you with the arcane legal gymnastics the Court used to reach that conclusion, but in essence the decision declared that money spent on a political campaign is equivalent to speech. Justice Byron White dissented, stating that FECA acknowledged that unlimited campaign spending is “a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken.” But, as I said, White was in the minority.
The Supreme Court expanded on that logic in 2010’s Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. There the Court ruled that limiting or prohibiting independent expenditures on political campaigns by corporations, labor unions, and other independent associations also violated those organizations’ free speech rights. This decision allowed those organizations to spend unlimited funds supporting or opposing political candidates. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying the decision was "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government.”
The upshot of these two rulings is that corporations, labor unions, wealthy donors, and other large organizations have much more influence over elections than you or I. In 2020 Sheldon and Miriam Adelson (Las Vegas Sands/Adelson Drug Clinic) donated $218,168,500 to political campaigns, Michael Bloomberg donated $152,509,750, Thomas and Taylor Steyer (Fahr LLC) donated $72,119,974, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein (Uihlein inc.) donated $68,3214,982 (mostly to election denier candidates), and on and on and on. So, how does that $100 you donated stack up?
As a consequence, campaigns become akin to wars. One candidate escalates by spending a bunch of money, and the other candidate must do the same. This cycle is played out at every level of government if both the Republican and Democratic parties have fielded viable candidates.
One other problem is a sitting official’s war chest, a term borrowed from kings and queens of old who, as the story goes, kept huge chests of gold and jewels in case they needed to fight a war and pay for it. Today, many politicians keep a war chest (actually a huge bank account) in case they have a viable opponent trying to take their office. For example, President Biden currently has $155 million in his account and former President Trump has $36.6 million.
Also, members of Congress are constantly raising funds for their war chest. On average, a senator seeking reelection this year must raise $11,400 per day and a House member must raise $5,500 per day.
In what universe does this make sense?
By comparison, almost every other country with open and free elections has limited campaign contributions, and countries such as Canada and The United Kingdom have for decades limited the amount individuals or parties may spend on campaigns. In recent years other countries such as “Belgium, Chile, France, Israel, New Zealand, South Korea and many others” have done the same.
Unsurprisingly, research conducted by folks at the National Bureau of Economic Research found that limiting campaign spending “increases political competition, reduces the chances of richer candidates getting elected, and reduces incumbency advantage.” In other words, limiting campaign spending actually accomplishes the goals of free and fair elections.
But, the U.S. Supreme Court makes imposing such restrictions almost impossible, and our options are limited:
The Court could change its mind and decide that money does not equal speech, thus reversing Buckley. Only then will it be possible to limit campaign donations AND campaign spending. The Court could also reverse Citizens United and allow restrictions on corporate and labor union donations.
Congress could introduce a constitutional amendment overturning Buckley and Citizens United, thus allowing limits on corporate donations.
I’m not going to get into the legal arguments, but the primary issue is that the Court has gradually granted corporations and other private entities many of the same rights you and I enjoy. That’s just dumb. I’ll accept a corporation’s personhood when it can marry or get an abortion.
Although 71% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats support campaign spending limits, I’m not optimistic that anything will happen. Most Americans are smart enough to understand that the huge amounts of money being spent on political campaigns is corrupting the process. It is too bad the Court and Congress apparently do not agree.
Thanks for following along.
David
Reading Recommendation: Circe by Madeline Miller. The story is taken from Homer’s Odyssey and focuses on the life of the banished witch Circe.
Once again, 'Brutus' is proven prescient in the Anti-Federalist papers about the dangers of an unchecked judiciary. For example in Anti-Federalist #15, he writes:
"I have said that the judges under this system will be independent in the strict sense of the word: To prove this I will shew — That there is no power above them that can controul their decisions, or correct their errors. There is no authority that can remove them from office for any errors or want of capacity, or lower their salaries, and in many cases their power is superior to that of the legislature.
1st. There is no power above them that can correct their errors or controul their decisions — The adjudications of this court are final and irreversible, for there is no court above them to which appeals can lie, either in error or on the merits. — In this respect it differs from the courts in England, for there the house of lords is the highest court, to whom appeals, in error, are carried from the highest of the courts of law.
2d. They cannot be removed from office or suffer a dimunition of their salaries, for any error in judgement or want of capacity.
It is expressly declared by the constitution, — "That they shall at stated times receive a compensation for their services which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."
The only clause in the constitution which provides for the removal of the judges from office, is that which declares, that "the president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." By this paragraph, civil officers, in which the judges are included, are removable only for crimes. Treason and bribery are named, and the rest are included under the general terms of high crimes and misdemeanors. — Errors in judgement, or want of capacity to discharge the duties of the office, can never be supposed to be included in these words, high crimes and misdemeanors. A man may mistake a case in giving judgment, or manifest that he is incompetent to the discharge of the duties of a judge, and yet give no evidence of corruption or want of integrity. To support the charge, it will be necessary to give in evidence some facts that will shew, that the judges commited the error from wicked and corrupt motives.
3d. The power of this court is in many cases superior to that of the legislature. I have shewed, in a former paper, that this court will be authorised to decide upon the meaning of the constitution, and that, not only according to the natural and ob[vious] meaning of the words, but also according to the spirit and intention of it. In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature. For all the departments of this government will receive their powers, so far as they are expressed in the constitution, from the people immediately, who are the source of power. The legislature can only exercise such powers as are given them by the constitution, they cannot assume any of the rights annexed to the judicial, for this plain reason, that the same authority which vested the legislature with their powers, vested the judicial with theirs — both are derived from the same source, both therefore are equally valid, and the judicial hold their powers independently of the legislature, as the legislature do of the judicial. — The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature. In England the judges are not only subject to have their decisions set aside by the house of lords, for error, but in cases where they give an explanation to the laws or constitution of the country, contrary to the sense of the parliament, though the parliament will not set aside the judgement of the court, yet, they have authority, by a new law, to explain a former one, and by this means to prevent a reception of such decisions. But no such power is in the legislature. The judges are supreme — and no law, explanatory of the constitution, will be binding on them."
I also once again point back to Judge John Bannister Gibson's famous dissent in Eakin v. Raub, in which he essentially argued that John Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison was a power grab by the U.S. Supreme Court, which usurped legislative authority. Boy, was he right!
I believe the answer to why more smart people don't get into politics is actually in the question. It is because they are smart.