The Level Playing Field

There has been a lot of talk in recent days about the Supreme Court ruling in the "Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission" case. By a margin of 5-4, the court decided that provisions that were part of the McCain-Feingold Act were a violation of free speech, and therefore Unconstitutional. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the president responded negatively to the ruling, stating that it "gave a green light to a new stampede of special-interest money in our politics," particularly "big oil, Wall Street banks, health-insurance companies and the other powerful interests" that "drown out the voices of everyday Americans." 


Perhaps he is right that every one of those groups will take advantage of relaxing regulation on political contributions in the upcoming election cycles. On the other hand, he appears to have ignored some other groups that likewise find it worthwhile to contribute to politics. No one can deny the significant amount of money spent by unions in this country to influence government. SEIU contributed significantly to the 2008 Obama campaign and its president Andy Stern is quoted in a Las Vegas Sun article as saying that they contributed some $60.7 million to the Obama campaign. 


Without taking the time to document every one of them, I would likewise feel safe in saying that significant contributions to campaigns and politicians were made by most Unions during the last election cycle. Many then suggest that corporations put such contributions up to a vote of the stockholders, obtaining their permission before supporting a person or program. 


Should then not similar rules apply to the contributions of their labor counterparts, with members rather than union management deciding who or what gets the money and how much? Some will make the case that the 5-4 majority of this decision was split down partisan lines, with justices appointed by Republican presidents supporting the ruling and those appointed by Democratic presidents dissenting. I would say in turn that this should be considered small surprise. 


I would in fact expect that judges appointed by more conservative (and therefore probably Republican) presidents should take a more constructionist view of the Constitution and Bill of Rights than their more liberal counterparts, who might share the view of many progressive thinkers that the Constitution is a living document that should answer more to the times than the language. 


None of this even touches on the ability of the print media, TV, and movies attempting to influence policy through the non-monetary means of positive or negative portrayals of political offices, plot premises that are based on the concept of man-made global disasters, or "documentaries" on subjects that carry the political prejudice of the director, the network, or the movie studio. Where is the hue and cry over legislation to monitor and regulate this potential abuse of freedom of speech?

The truth of the matter is that even with the McCain-Feingold legislation, there was still plenty of money in politics. The Obama Campaign spent more than the Bush and Kerry campaigns combined in the previous election cycle, and since the President did not accept matching government funds, he was not obligated to share contributor lists or amounts in the same way as his competitor was with us. Ignored, and far more important than the influence these groups have in campaign finance however, is what they have in crafting legislation. 


Groups on the left and the right spend far more money attempting to influence (or even write) any legislation that might affect them than they do on candidates. Lawyers keep tort reform from entering the health care discussion, environmental groups get potential sources of oil protected as national parks, and the recent negotiations over Cadillac health care plans that would exempt unions until 2017 are but the latest example of the pressure that unions can bring to bear on legislators. 


Meanwhile agribusiness fights to keep farm subsidies and bio fuel legislation in place, and banks and Wall Street fight to keep their rights to legal gambling with government backed funds. No large organization is innocent of playing the system and many survive only by a combination of legislator coercion and nursing at the government teat. 


It has long been understood that money is speech in this country when it comes to elections. It appears that at least five members of the Supreme Court acknowledge that fact and understand that this freedom is guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. It also appears that they likewise understand that if the document on which this country's government is to mean anything, that allowing all sides to participate on an equal footing in the process is little more than leveling the playing field.

Fractured Fairy Tales - The Emperor's New Clothes

Yes boys and girls, it's time once again for another of these unique fables of our times (well, kind of anyway). This tale, like most of the others, should really need no introduction. So let's not waste any time and get right to it ...


Once upon a time, there was a ruler known simply "The Gov". Now The Gov liked to hold a parade that he nicknamed "the election" every couple of years (with bigger parades every 4 years) where he would smile a lot of smiles, shake a lot of hands, and kiss a lot of babies. As part of this bi-annual event, The Gov used to let the people of the kingdom send him the clothes that he would wear while walking the parade route. The people took this form of parade financing very seriously and rather enjoyed participating in so personal a way in the process. Neighborhoods, trade guilds, and even the local businesses would compete with each other by carefully selecting what they were going to send in the hopes of getting some special notice from the Gov.


One day, two tailors by the name of McCain and Feingold came to town. They listened to the story of the semi-annual parade and the clothing competition and were appalled. Such a system had to be rife with graft and chicanery, and as such must be ended immediately. So they went to The Gov to see if they could impose a more fair system of clothing financing (at least in their minds) and set things right. Knowing that changing tradition is often difficult, they realized that they would probably have to approach this change gradually. (Can you say incremental ism?)


"The shirt," they said, "is the most important thing that you wear. As such, it's simply not fair to let the people spend their 'hard' earned money and not achieve the desired access to you. Besides, the businesses can afford more than other people and that gives them an unfair advantage. So what we propose is to limit the amount of money that can be spent and let everyone send us the money. We will make your shirt."


"That seems fair," said the Gov, and that's how he decreed it.
Having gotten this far in their plans, McCain and Feingold soon approached The Gov again.


"The pants, when you think about it," they said "are just as important, and must match the shirt besides. Now a lot of people are trying to get around the shirt rules imposed by contributing to the pants. This is just as unfair, though the approach here is more of a 'soft' one than that used for the shirt. We think that there should be limits on this too in the true spirits of fairness. So we should limit the contributions on the pants and have them send the money in to us. We will make the pants as well."


"When you're right, you're right," The Gov replied. "See that it's done." ... and it was.


Now having all but achieved their goal, the two approached the ruler a final time.


"Gov," they said (they were long since on a first name basis). "No outfit is complete without a proper jacket. And with the fairness imposed by the previous restrictions for the shirt and pants, shouldn't we do something about the last loophole in the system? Shouldn't we do something about how the 'issue' of this jacket money is handled?"


"Goodness," The Gov replied. "How could I have missed this? Of course we will change this 'issue' of money for the jacket and fairness will thereby be assured."


Time passed, the day of the parade finally arrived. The Gov. was dressed by his two "Tailors of Fairness"; and to his amazement, The Gov discovered that all three garments; shirts, pants and jacket were all see-through. Now this seemed a bit strange, so he questioned his tailors about the nature of his attire. How could there be all of these new rules, how could all of this money be coming in, and nothing of substance emerge?


"That's the beauty of the system," they replied. "The Gov should have no secrets. The new fairness that has been brought to the process of clothing selection assures that all parts of The Gov will be visible. This of course, is as it should be. The fact that all of this money is now being regulated and dispensed by us is simply a bureaucratic necessity, and you shouldn't worry your head about it."


Embarrassed over his apparent lack of understanding of so simple a concept, The Gov finished dressing and entered the streets to begin the parade. He soon discovered that he wasn't the only one embarrassed however. You see, The Gov was never very attractive to look at and it was only the participation that the people had in influencing his raiment that made the process (and The Gov's appearance) bearable. It was likewise this freedom of expression in influencing the very nature of The Gov that made the parade worth having. The more The Gov walked on the route, the more the parade became a disaster; with fewer smiles on the faces of the people or The Gov (Would you be smiling if everyone could see through your clothes?), many shunning the offered handshakes, and no self-respecting mother holding her baby forth for kissing by what they could see walking down the street.


Attendance is going down at the parade these days, though the two tailors seem to be happy enough. While the clothing choice method may or may not be more fair than it was, people find that when they aren't going to get to fully participate in the process, why show up for the party at all.

THE END

Our newly arrayed election process is happily parading itself in the streets of the country these days under the McCain-Feingold legislation, and the results are anything but satisfying (0r pretty). These new clothes are anything but fair, and the very politicians who sought their implementation are now seeking new ways around them. The story above hints at the madness of the past and the next round of "fairness" lying ahead, with legislators feeling that only the government can properly dispense the money if elections are to be truly fair.


These new clothes provide less protection and less Freedom of Expression that they were supposed to, and less than is guaranteed us in the Constitution; but we are asked to ignore that in the name of "fairness". And as for the amount of money being spent, it's even greater than it was before these so-called protections were put in place. The ugly truth of the matter (which is fairly easy to see through to) is that this kind of "fairness" is anything but.