This weeks’ political quiz.
One the following is true and one is false.
(a) “All politics is local.”
(b) Money is the lifeblood of politics.
The correct answer is (b).
It makes (a) false.
The reverse was once true, with election campaigns conducted
on a “retail” face-to-face basis on issues that were matters of state or local
concern. Now, many campaigns are
national and rely heavily on outside funds and support.
This year, the U.S. House of Representatives is forecast to flip
from Republican to Democratic and that there is even a slim chance that GOP could
also lose control of the Senate.
The Democrats need to pick up at least 23 seats to gain
House control, usually too great a challenge in any election. Incumbents traditionally hold onto their
seats. This year, a great many House
Republicans have chosen not to run, including House Speaker Paul Ryan.
What has clearly turned this year’s House elections into a
national contest is President Trump.
With both houses of Congress in Republican control, he is able to pursue
his policies virtually unchecked. His
popularity remains relatively low, and voters may favor giving Democrats
control of the House to block him.
Aside from party loyalty, voters in House races are likely
to be more influenced by their view of Trump than of their local candidate. This may also be true in Senate races, but
most seats there up for election this year are held by Democrats, making their
challenge to Trump more difficult.
Once most financial support for candidates came from within
his or her home state, and much of it came in small amounts. A big change took place in 2010 when the
Democrats persisted in treating House races as local while the GOP launched a
national campaign based on opposition to the Affordable Care Act.
This year, a billionaire, who made his fortune running
casinos, is contributing tens of millions of dollars to support Republican
candidates across the country, almost entirely because of Trump’s decision to
move the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Local issues don’t matter.
The political mantra seems to be, “All politics is money.” We have reached the point where there is
virtually no limit on big money contributions to elections. Unless you read the fine print at the bottom
of television campaign commercials, you miss the extent of out-of-state
campaign funding.
“SuperPACS” receive huge, unlimited sums, their sources kept
secret. They can spend freely, so long
as they claim they are independent of the candidates they support. Their outlays dwarf labor union contributions,
despite their effort to make it seem they are merely striking a balance.
Let’s look at the campaign of a House incumbent from Maine to
see the role of outside money.
One commercial for Second District candidate Bruce Poliquin,
the incumbent, is funded by the NRCC, which states that it is not affiliated
with his campaign. But the NRCC is the
National Republican Congressional Campaign, the party’s main organization for
supporting House candidates.
The largest contributors to it are major finance and
insurance companies plus the campaign funds raised by GOP House hopefuls for
party leader who want members’ votes when the new Congress assembles in January.
Poliquin’s campaign website notes: “He earned success
helping manage pensions, including at Bath Iron Works.” That understates his success. He has been rated as the 17th wealthiest
member of the 435 member House on the strength of what he made as an investment
manager.
Among his largest contributors are financial firms like
Citigroup and UBS. They may not be
seeking his support for their issues but simply ensuring that a like-minded
congressman, with experience in the world of finance, remains in office. Either way, this support has little to do
with Maine.
Whether it is Poliquin or other candidates, voters can
easily be left with the false impression that the candidates are locally
supported. The trail of the big money
behind congressional campaigns reveals that many candidates are dependent on
national interests beyond their claimed local focus.
Most of the money goes to buy television commercials and to
send mailings in which candidates make their case or, more often, their
opponents are attacked. Backers know
that voters are influenced by negative spots, short on solid information and
often wildly inaccurate.
In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that spending money is part
of free speech, making it virtually impossible to limit campaign cash. Now, in politics, big money talks loudly.
Congress should seek ways to limit money in campaigns,
forcing a new Court review, if necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment