Michael Swickard
It is the absolute pinnacle of hypocrisy for the American news media to decry the influence of money in American politics since said money is most often spent in the media.
Federal and statewide campaigns run on money as football teams run on cleats. Without them, there is no traction. Even the most naïve politician understands that the candidate with the most money wins most of the time.
When there is an attempt to moderate the influence of money in politics, the media is quick to bring out the argument that money is free speech. But is it? It is speech, that is assured. But with the way money is spent, it is not free speech: It costs a bundle per minute.
In today’s society we are bombarded with commercials because most politicians follow a formula for success that demands more and more money for more and more political advertisements. From signs and radio commercials to television infomercials, money opens the door to being able to speak to the masses instead of trying to speak to one voter at a time.
Money is labeled as speech, and perhaps in an odd way it might be considered a part of speech, but really resembles free speech as pinto beans resemble jelly beans: in appearance but not substance.
Both parties run on money
Most politicians dial for dollars with the mantra: Help me get my message out to the people; give me money now and money later and money again. As we know when we watch carefully, politicians nationally and statewide spend almost every waking hour glad-handing for dollars. Almost every activity of their campaign has at the core a fundraiser of one sort or another.
Why must they do so? Those who do not usually do not win. And I hate to dispel the myth, but there is never ever ever enough money, and do not forget it, according to those people running for office.
Of the many jobs that I happily do not have, politics is number one for me to avoid. It is not the hard questions to avoid or the seemingly impossible situations we Americans have gotten ourselves into. No, it is having to spend all of my time before the election, and then if successful, all of my time while in office, focused on the drumbeat of fundraising.
Example: The two stories most often told in the New Mexico governor’s race: how much money each candidate has raised and how many negative statements have been made in political commercials bought with the money that was raised. The two are connected.
There are three basic problems in the body politic of our country. There is an undercurrent of influence peddling, there is the power of incumbency such that most politicians leave office when they die, and, finally, money has changed what people in politics do: Now they spend all of their time raising funds.
The damage to our society is not that all politicians call each other “Poo poo heads;” rather, it’s that to get a politician’s attention citizens must be donating money. I am painting with a wide brush, but if you think this is not so try to get time with the candidates without a donation while someone else gives freely, and see which one of you is blessed with the attention of the candidate.
Note: It is both parties who run on money and run to money all of the time.
How do we take money out of politics?
There have been some people talking about taking the influence of money out of politics, but that would require politicians to surrender that power, which they will not willingly. To those politicians who have been elected again and again to decide to surrender the power of money and incumbency, well, perhaps some politicians do think in a higher way, but they are few and far between.
What to do? The problem is that Americans have the body politics that they have in general wanted and rewarded. We say to the politicians, “Here is a pot of money, make sure I am taken care of well,” and the politicians have done so.
The question is: How do we take money out of politics? My answer is, I do not know.
Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.
Swickard bio │ Archives │ Feed