Campaign laws make Congress a millionaires club
By Brian Kirwin | Thursday, July 22nd, 2010 | PolicyAfter Republican Congressional candidate Scott Rigell trailed Rep. Glenn Nye by about a million bucks in cash-on-hand in the latest campaign finance reports, Rigell simply gave an Alfred E. Neuman, said “What, me worry?” and wrote himself a $500,000 check.
Since the lockdown on campaign fundraising limiting individual contributions to $1,000 and later reforms that raised those limits to current $2400 levels, guess who the political parties have gravitated to?
Millionaires.
Currently, 44% of all of Congress and specifically 48% of the Senate are millionaires. That compares with the general public, of whom millionaires are only a whopping 1%.
The next time a federal legislator attacks the wealthy, hold up a mirror for him.
But that’s what a system that limits donations for multi-million dollar campaigns to a few thousand will give you – a legislature full of millionaires and worse, full of millionaires who are motivated to spend giant chunks of it to be in office.
Parties love millionaire candidates, because it’s near impossible in the few short months of a Congressional or Senatorial election for non-millionaires to rack up millions at $2400 per person. Either you have to fund yourself for the most part, or have a thousand friends with 2 grand sitting around for you. And since Party soft money became a no-no in 2002, that need for the self-funding candidate just became greater.
I’ve long ridiculed the whiners who sob, sniff and cry about there being too much money in politics. Adding up every campaign from your local City Councilman to President of the United States, campaigns cost about as much as Americans spend on potato chips.
Anyone proposing a potato chip finance reform act? Is Frito-Lay “too big to fail?”
Instead, we have “the people’s house” having 44 times the share of millionaires that the rest of America has.
The Supreme Court says millionaires can spend as much as they want on their own campaigns, and I agree. Free speech is free speech. But it’s bad policy to tell the politically-motivated wealthy that the only way they can fund a campaign is by being the candidate. If a millionaire wants to fund the next Ronald Reagan, I’m finding it very difficult to understand why he shouldn’t be able to.
And anyone who thinks the answer to this all is government-controlled and mainstream media-dominated public financing, welfare for politicians, they need a serious headsoaking in some very cold water.
The results are clear. The more we restrict donations to political candidates, the less Congress will look, act and be like the rest of us.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
7 Responses to "Campaign laws make Congress a millionaires club"
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by BowlMeOverVa, Pharma Sy. Pharma Sy said: Campaign laws make Congress a millionaires club | Bearing Drift … http://bit.ly/aqFbgI [...]
I gotta say I enjoyed this. Not often I would say that about things written on this website… but you make some good points.
I do wish you had fleshed out this a little more:
“…anyone who thinks the answer to this all is government-controlled and mainstream media-dominated public financing, welfare for politicians, they need a serious headsoaking in some very cold water.”
I don’t think this is as self obviously wrong as you imply with the flippant dismissal. I like reasons.
Thanks for the info though.
Jay, thanks for the comments.
I think the last thing we need is government telling candidates how much they can or can not spend telling their story. That’s what public financing is. It hands out money in exchange for spending limits.
The more you limit candidates, the more power the press has to dominate campaigns. No candidate will be able to match their daily storytelling reach.
Besides, any public financing that isn’t voluntary would be deemed unconstitutional, and millionaires would still dominate, because they could opt out of it and spend to their hearts content.
The House ethics committee announced on Thursday that it would bring charges against Charlie Rangel, and the Manhattan Democrat responded by telling reporters that “I look forward to airing this thing.” Don’t we all.
We certainly look forward to hearing Mr. Rangel’s defense, in particular his explanation for why the rules that apply to everyone else would seem not to apply to him.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703294904575385051601020166.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy
Everyone knew most of the press corps was hoping for Obama in 2008. Newly released emails show that hundreds of them were actively working to promote him.
This week, Mr. Carlson produced a series of JournoList emails from April 2008, when Barack Obama’s presidential bid was in serious jeopardy. Videos of the antiwhite, anti-American sermons of his Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had surfaced, first on ABC and then other networks.
JournoList contributors discussed strategies to aid Mr. Obama by deflecting the controversy. They went public with a letter criticizing an ABC interview of Mr. Obama that dwelled on his association with Mr. Wright. Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama’s critics as racists. He wrote:
“If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them—Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares—and call them racists. . . . This makes them ‘sputter’ with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”
No one on JournoList endorsed the Ackerman plan. But rather than object on ethical grounds, they voiced concern that the strategy would fail or possibly backfire.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704684604575381083191313448.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
Isn’t this just one of those feel good, we’re looking out for the little people items. If they take the money out of government, then so goes the corruption. Not the case. Who cares how much is donated for campaigns and who the donations come from. All this really does it make it more difficult to find out where the money actually comes from.
If millionaires really cared about making a positive difference for Americans, they would invest their money in causes that improve the lives of those Americans. Blowing $120 million dollars to become California’s next governor is no act of civic benevolence. She’d make a far greater impact if she donated that money to the many no-profits in dire need for funding. As it stands, big business lobbyists are already lined up to negotiate and give Whitman back all her money in return, what will it be? All california prisons going private? A new set of laws to ensure they are at full capacity? Sounds like the needs of the poor will be addressed.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.