Are elections for sale?

116 Pages·2001·0.714 MB·English

by  Cohen, Joshua;Donnelly, David;Fine, Janice Ruth;Miller, Ellen S.;Rogers, Joel

ARE ELECTIONS FOR SALE?
‘‘NewDemocracyForumoperatesatalevelofliteracyand
responsibilitywhichisalltoorareinourtime.’’
—JohnKennethGalbraith
OtherbooksintheNewDemocracyForumseries:
TheNewInequality:CreatingSolutionsforPoorAmerica,
byRichardB.Freeman
ACommunityofEquals:TheConstitutionalProtectionofNew
Americans,byOwenFiss
MetroFutures:EconomicSolutionsforCitiesandTheirSuburbs,
byDanielD.LuriaandJoelRogers
UrgentTimes:PolicingandRightsinInner-CityCommunities
byTraceyL.MearesandDanM.Kahan
WillStandardsSavePublicEducation?byDeborahMeier
DoAmericansShopTooMuch?byJulietSchor
BeyondBackyardEnvironmentalism,byCharlesSabel,Archon
Fung,andBradleyKarkkainen
IsInequalityBadforOurHealth?byNormanDaniels,Bruce
Kennedy,andIchiroKawachi
What’sWrongwithaFreeLunch?byPhilippeVanParijs
WhoseVoteCounts?byRobertRichieandStevenHill
ARE ELECTIONS FOR SALE?
DAVID DONNELLY, JANICE FINE,
AND ELLEN S. MILLER
EDITED BY JOSHUA COHEN AND JOEL ROGERS
FOR BOSTONREVIEW
BEACON PRESS
BOSTON
BEACONPRESS
BeaconStreet
Boston,Massachusetts-
www.beacon.org
BeaconPressbooks
arepublishedundertheauspicesof
theUnitarianUniversalistAssociationofCongregations.
(cid:1),byJoshuaCohenandJoelRogers
OriginallypublishedasMoneyandPolitics:FinancingOurElectionsDemocratically
all rights reserved
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
            
Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaperthatmeetstheuncoatedpaper
ansi/nisospecificationsforpermanenceasrevisedin.
CompositionbyWilsted&TaylorPublishingServices
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Donnelly,David.
[Moneyandpolitics]
Areelectionsforsale?/DavidDonnelly,JaniceFine,andEllenS.Miller;
editedbyJoshuaCohenandJoelRogersforBostonreview.
p. cm.—(Newdemocracyforum)
Originallypublishedas:Moneyandpolitics:financingourelections
democratically.c.
Includesbibliographicreferences.
isbn---(pbk.)
.Campaignfunds—UnitedStates. I.Fine,Janice(JaniceRuth)
II.Miller,EllenS. III.Cohen,Joshua,– . IV.Rogers,Joel,– .
V.Title. VI.Series.
jk1991.d672001
.(cid:1)(cid:1)—dc 
CONTENTS
ForewordbyGoreVidal / vii
PrefacebyDavidDonnelly
andJaniceFine / xiii
1
daviddonnelly,janicefine,
andellens.miller

GoingPublic /
2
senatorrussellfeingold

ModestReform? /
zachpolett

EmpowerCitizens /
douglasphelps

SettingLimits /
e.joshuarosenkranz

CleanandConstitutional /
steverosenthalandamandafuchs

Labor’sRole /
bruceackerman

ThePatriotOption /
thomase.mann

APleaforRealism /
danielh.lowenstein

ARoleforParties /
3
daviddonnelly,janicefine,
andellens.miller

Reply /

Notes /

AbouttheContributors /
FOREWORD
gore vidal
On a recent cross-country tour of the U.S., I chatted
aboutpoliticswithallsortsofaudiences—sometimesin
theflesh,morerarelyfromthetube,whereIoncereigned
butnow,asourrulersgrowedgy,amrelegatedtotheca-
blemargins(alongwithsuchfellownay-sayersasNoam
Chomsky).IntheseconversationsIfoundagain,despite
ever greater media censorship of radical ideas, that my
audiences were quite alert to the perfect corruption of
ffi
our public life. They know that political o ces are
boughtbythosewhocanpayanddeniedtoalltherest,
thatpoliticiansarebetteridentifiedwiththeircorporate
ancestrythanvotingbase(thelateSenatorHenryJack-
son,forexample,beingmoreaccuratelydescribedasthe
senatorfromBoeingthanWashingtonstate).But,given
this, I was often asked: ‘‘Why is nothing done?’’ ‘‘Why
is there so little outrage?’’ ‘‘Why is there no party of
Reform?’’

Whyindeed?Writingin ,DavidHumeobserved,
‘‘Nothingappearsmoresurprisingtothosewhoconsider
ff
humana airswithaphilosophicaleyethantheeasiness
with which the many are governed by the few, and the
{ vii }
GORE VIDAL
implicit submission with which men resign their own
sentimentsandpassionstothoseoftherulers.Whenwe
ff
inquirebywhatmeansthiswonderise ected,weshall
find out that, as Force is always on the side of the gov-
erned, thegovernors havenothing to supportthem but
opinion. It is, therefore, on opinion only that govern-
ment is founded, and the maxim extends to the most
despotic and most military governments as well as the
mostfreeandpopular.’’
To deny inconvenient opinions a hearing is one way
the few have of controlling the many. But as Richard
Nixon used to say, ‘‘That would be the easy way.’’ The
slyerwayistobombardthepublicwithmisinformation.
During more than half a century of corruption by the
printed word in the form of ‘‘news’’—propaganda dis-
guisedasfact—Ihaveyettoreadastoryfavorabletoan-
othersociety’ssocialandpoliticalarrangements.Swedes
havefreehealthcare,betterschoolsthanours,childday-
carecentersforworkingmothers...buttheSwedesare
all drunks who commit suicide (even blonde blue-eyed
people must pay for such decadent amenities). Lesson?
Nonationalhealthcare,noeducation,etc.,because—as
WilliamBennettwilltellyouassoonasaTVredlight
switches on—social democracy, much less socialism, is
just plain morally evil. Far better to achieve the good
thingsinlifehonestly,byinheritingmoneyorwinninga
lottery.TheAmericanway.
ThefactthattheUnitedStateswasneverintendedto
{ viii }
FOREWORD
beademocracyissowellknownthatitisnowcompletely
forgotten.(Hencethefamiliar,grindingincantationof
ouropinionmakers:‘‘Wearethegreatestdemocracyon
earth, with the widest range of detergents, etc.’’) The
mostcandidoftheFoundingFathers,JohnJay,puttheir
opinion on the matter in an artless but truthful way:
‘‘The people who own the country ought to run it.’’
James Madison, a preacher’s son, poured unction over
this when he acknowledged demurely and approvingly
theironlawof oligarchythatinvariablycomestogovern
parliaments, congresses, and nations. The few will al-
ways control the many through manufactured opinion,
which bedazzles and confuses the many when it is not
just plain dumbing them down into the dust of what
SpiroAgnewcalled‘‘thegreatestnationinthecountry.’’
Nevertheless,atrulypopular opinionisbeginningto
coalesceintheperpetualshadowofmanufacturedopin-
ffi
ion:oursystemof electingpoliticianstoo ceisrotten
andcorruptedtoitscore,becauseorganizedmoneyhas
longsincereplacedorganizedpeopleastheauthorofour
politics.Andmostof itcomesfromrichpeopleandcor-
porations, who now own our political process—lock,
stock,andporkbarrel.
Somenutsandbolts.Of thebillionsnowspenteach
election cycle, most is donated in checks exceeding
 
, .Butlessthanone-tenthof percentof thegen-
eral population make individual contributions at this

rate.Andamonggroupcontributors,betterthan per-
{ ix }
GORE VIDAL
cent comes from corporations, which duly record their
political investment as a tax-deductible ‘‘cost of doing
business.’’ These happy few are prepared to pay a high
andrisingpricefortheprivilegeof controllingourgov-

ernment.Inthe electioncycle,theaveragewinning

House candidate cost the owners about , , the

averagewinningSenatecandidateabitover million.
Multiplybothfiguresbytwoifyouwantthecostofdis-
ffi
lodging an incumbent from o ce—in a system where,

last time around, over percent were reelected. To fi-
nancearaceinbigmediamarketslikeNewYorkorCali-

fornia,it’sabitmoreexpensive:asof electionday ,
 
somethinglike millionand millionrespectively.
Andif theytireof buyingothers,of course,therich
ffi
canbuypoliticalo cesforthemselves.InitstrulyCali-
gulaesqueBuckleyv.Valeodecision,ourSupremeCourt,
evereagertoextendtheireccentricnotionofdemocracy,
ruledthattherichhaveeveryrighttospendasmuchof
ffi
their own money as they like to buy an o ce. Hence,
a demi-billionaire like Herb Kohl could campaign as
‘‘Nobody’sSenatorbutYours!’’,meaningnot‘‘yours’’but
‘‘mine,’’andwin.
Dothemanyreallyholdtheopinionsof thefewwho
ownthepoliticalprocess?Itwouldseemnot,sinceonly
half theeligiblevoterscanbringthemselvestovoteina
ff
presidentialelection,whileonlyathirdvoteino -year
congressionalelections.
OndarkdaysIinclinetowhatHenryAdamswroteat
{ x }