Proof that money doesn't rule politics
Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 8 months ago to Politics
Yesterday was primary election day in Wisconsin. This election featured 2 races where nearly a million dollars (or, some speculate more) was used by a candidate or on behalf of a candidate for - get this - a primary campaign for County Sheriff, and another for a Congressional seat.
It is speculated that Chris Abele (local millionaire and current Milwaukee county chair) invested at least $150k of the $400k that a PAC spent, and reportedly Michael Bloomberg sunk $150k to defeat the strong 2nd Amendment supporting sheriff Clarke - http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/d...
In the 6th WI District Congressional race, one candidate dumped nearly a million of his own dollars into the campaign to try to "buy" the seat. He was soundly rejected, coming in 3rd place - http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/27105...
It is speculated that Chris Abele (local millionaire and current Milwaukee county chair) invested at least $150k of the $400k that a PAC spent, and reportedly Michael Bloomberg sunk $150k to defeat the strong 2nd Amendment supporting sheriff Clarke - http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/d...
In the 6th WI District Congressional race, one candidate dumped nearly a million of his own dollars into the campaign to try to "buy" the seat. He was soundly rejected, coming in 3rd place - http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/27105...
Crossing my fingers that Grothman keeps his lead versus Leibham. Everything went the way I wanted - unless this race gets reversed.
We have eaten at Fox and Hound a few times and have friends in Colgate.
So, are you a stereotypical ambulance chasing lawyer?
No, money down!
Not an actual law-talking-guy, just a fan of the humor used in his character.
We are so fortunate in SE WI to have some of the best conservative talk radio people in the nation. Mark Belling (sometimes subs for Rush), Vicki McKenna (should sub for Rush), Charlie Sykes, and Jay Weber along with a host of fill-ins on WISN radio that are just great. These folks cut through the bull and give it to the listener straight.
The party elite influence whoever that may be does not accompany the voter into the booth and watch how they vote.
There is vote buying in politics... it is candidates who promise large groups of voters government benefits and services to be paid for by other smaller groups of voters. Seems impossible the Democratic Party candidates ever lose.
No Taxation without Representation. No Representation without Taxation.
I too, believe in representative gov't. The best way to get back to that is to limit the power to tax/spend by all levels of gov't.
And yes, I see your concern. I am more concerned, however, about outside interests - who are by far the most active political players - getting involved in local politics. For instance, right now there is a move in my area to create a National Park out of the Boulder/White Clouds area. The funding for this movement and the activists (I talked to one) aren't from my area and aren't being funded by people even in my state. They aren't even the ones who use the recreational area. That's what I'm against.
Same thing with all those union protesters that got bused in to protest Scott Walker - they didn't have any skin in the game, they weren't going to be affected by the decisions made there in Wisconsin, yet someone from outside that voting district was willing to pay a lot of money to influence an election when they aren't even constituents! I could rattle off several other high-profile examples.
Is there a concern about high-rollers buying our current representatives? Sure. But they would be constituents with a very vested interest in the outcome and who would be directly affected. I think that they deserve a chance to vote with their pocketbooks and back the candidates of their choice. That being said, I believe that sunshine is always the best disinfectant, which is why I would also support the disclosure of any donations over some arbitrary limit in order to publicize any undue influence.
Do I agree that limited government spending is desirable? Yes. But that is wholly another topic than where election or issue funding comes from.
Let me ask you this: do you believe that a group outside of the voting constituency should be able to affect the outcome of an election? If so, why?
btw - Bloomberg is up to several millions of dollars "invested" in defeating pro-2nd Amendment candidates, all of whom have lost. Bwuhahaha.
I have a problem with dishonest communication. But should the NRA be prohibited from providing communication? Or the Am Center for Law and Justice? No, I do not support prohibition for all such types of groups, but those that lie should be forced to cease and correct their lies.
The solution to dishonest speech is not less speech, but rather more.
I don't disagree that the two groups you mention advocate for causes I happen to ideologically agree with. But I also look at the groups like the Sierra Club, ACORN, and many others who like to rabble rouse. What I am focusing on is getting back to a system of government for the people, by the people - not special interest groups of any kind.
The problem with having special interests involved in politics is that the politicians then give more deference to them than their constituents because they rely on them for funding for re-election. Fundamentally, I think that is one of the things that has turned our political system on its head - too many rich radicals attempting to push their agendas. I want to encourage people to become engaged in politics, but I believe that many people don't anymore because they look at all these special groups and figure that they don't need to be involved - or worse that they (individually) don't matter. Eliminating outside influence (via direct donations) on local elections is one way I see of encouraging more people to get involved. I don't think that bombarding people with more messages gets us to the end goal of moving people toward taking an active hand in their own future. I believe that ownership - having skin in the game - is the key to having a robust and healthy society. If someone doesn't have ownership, ie they aren't affected by the decisions, they shouldn't be influencing the outcome.
On person's rational ideological support (NRA) for example is another persons irrational rabble rousers (just ask the left - that's what they call the NRA).
Your fix is no fix, in my opinion, and ends up with a worse situation than it is now. At least now, I can band together with fellow like minded people and support candidates wherever they are that exemplify those ideas we support. Under your scenario, I don't get to do that, and those local with lots of money will have the only voice.
I don't see the answer to the underlying problem - lack of citizen involvement and understanding of the political process - being limiting money. Rather, it is in limiting those who are able to be involved to those who have demonstrated their involvement in supporting the nation. I've explained this several times, so you can find it elsewhere if you look. Or, go read the book "Starship Troopers" by RA Heinlein.
I see a major problem in politics to be the special interest groups. You don't seem to view them as a part of the solution. We'll just agree to disagree on that point.
As for Starship Troopers - not property ownership, but service to the nation, is what qualified you for citizenship, and the right to vote and serve political office. Big difference. No money needed to serve.