|
“Buying the vote”
Tuesday, Jan 16, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller Lee Newspapers did a brief series recently entitled “Buying the vote.” Here’s a typical follow-up editorial, entitled “It’s time to return power of vote to the people.”
That’s pretty harsh, if you ask me. It basically assumes that voters are corrupt and willing to “sell” their votes. And if that’s the case, no amount of reforms will work. The title of the editorial assumes that campaign money has somehow taken away the “power of the vote” from citizens. Most of the series’ focus was on the cash that legislative leaders dumped into campaigns.
But the premise is a bit flawed. In many, if not most, cases with hotly contested races, the leaders from each party spent about the same amount of money. And in at least one instance (Mike Boland vs. Steve Haring) the losing leader spent more money than the winning leader. Back to the editorial for a moment.
Well, those federal limits didn’t do much to quell corruption in DC, did they? Conveniently overlooked is that voters told exit pollsters last year that DC corruption was their top issue. DC is probably the last place to look up to as a role model of righteousness and good, and the contention, in my mind at least, completely undermines the point. Do legislative leaders have too much power? Yep. No doubt about that. But the hyper-cynical attitude that money automatically buys votes ignores all else that happened last year and isn’t gonna move the ball down the field much. Thoughts?
|
 |
|
|
- Greg - Tuesday, Jan 16, 07 @ 8:55 am:
You offer some wise, adult comments.
We spend more money marketing potato chips in this country than we do on elections.
If you would like more competitive elections then focus on gerrymandering. Instead members of picking their voters we need voters picking their members. That would go a long way to making things more competitive.
Dare I say it… I also think making Springfield less fun would improve the quality of government in Springfield. When commentators compare Springfield to a college town or stories of members saying why would we want to leave all of this…this is great… I wonder if we are taking government all that seriously. Henry Hyde, a very serious legislator and man, even couldn’t resist it.
- Slash - Tuesday, Jan 16, 07 @ 9:01 am:
Situation #1
————
So I have a state job. It pays well, and there aren’t many jobs in the town I live in that give benefits & security like the state one.
If I vote to keep people the same people in power in Springfield, because I am worried about losing my job if ‘change’ occurs, has my vote been ‘bought’?
Situation #2
————
Similarly, I have a contract with the state to provide a service. I have many employees that depend on that contract for their livelihood.
Is voting to keep the status quo (i.e. to avoid state budget cuts) ‘buying my vote’? Suppose the service I provide is ‘moral’: health care, support for the poor, homeless, safety for the population…is OK for me to campaign against ‘cutting necessary services’?
You aren’t going to be able to fix those two situations through campaign finance reform. Lots of people are addicted to public money. Remove it, they go through withdrawal. Fact of life.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jan 16, 07 @ 9:15 am:
It seems to me that the Lee papers are trying to find a villian behind the November elections.
The only votes bought were the ones voters sold to themselves. Blagojevich, naked as a jay-bird, sold voters an empty sack of promises. Last week, he promised even more goodies to come. Voters believed him, so the votes bought with nothing were their own votes.
Voters are really not stupid. They really do vote their own interests. They see the bottom falling out of the state. They voted for a soft landing - for themselves. They didn’t want a proactive tough love crowd. They knew the hits were coming, and Blagojevich by promising something for nothing came off as the guy who would hit them the least.
The Democrats ran as the Mommies and that is what voters wanted. After six years of Daddies fighting a war, and scaring the kids, voters wanted a the soft busom of the Democrats. They know they are denying reality, but wanted to see if they can hide from our problems and let Mommy take care of it for a while.
Money had little to do with any of this.
The editorial staff at the Lee papers wanted to believe voters were willing to make patriotic sacrifices, make budgetary sacrifices, and see the long term benefits of tough decisions now. The fact that they were proven wrong is making them look for a scapegoat. Campaign financing will not be effective if it comes from a legislator. Expecting them to do the job right would be like expecting hookers to define virginity.
- He makes Ryan look like a saint!!! - Tuesday, Jan 16, 07 @ 10:22 am:
Was there any race where a candidate had less money and won?
- Justice - Tuesday, Jan 16, 07 @ 10:46 am:
Perhaps it isn’t so much buying the vote as it is spinning the facts. The results are essentially the same. The more sophisticated the voter, the more sophisticated the spin. Buying the vote, through spin, innuendo, and outright dishonesty is in full swing nationally. With enough money a politician can make Mother Teresa look like the devil and make Blogo look like a saint…..and guess who wins!! Our last election resulted in our electing the governor of Illinois with less than 25% of those eligible to vote.(not that the choice was that good) If you can create a lack of interest and turn out your party strong, you win. If you can slant and spin the truth to make it look like your opponent favors a tax on fresh air, you win. Money buys votes through deceptive, and pernicious advertising. The greatest evil is apathy of those eligible to vote. Most eligible voters have no clue of who is running for office, much less for what they stand. True politicians have learned that if you make voting so distasteful to the general public, and you manage a good core of “party faithfulâ€, you win. Unfortunately for all of us, we will ultimately lose as only the greedy and corrupt will win, because there is something in it for them. The general public seems to be saying “Hey, let someone else watch the Constitution….I’m busy shopping for a HD TV, catching the sales on Michigan Avenue, or planning my next trip to Vegas or Cancun. Money, through well directed advertising, buys votes….not always to turn out voters, but in many cases through driving down voter turnout for your opponent. Money equals votes!!
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jan 16, 07 @ 11:12 am:
“Nature abhors a vacuum” said the ancient Greeks. You can argue that Madigan, Jones, Cross and Watson have too much power, but if they didn’t have the power, who would?
Would it be distributed evenly among all 177 members? Doubtful. Would it leave the Governor and special interests unchecked? Definitely.
Power is neither good nor evil, and our republican system of government has shown that it does measure out a just reward to those who wield it, even if the wheels of democracy do grind a little slow for some folks liking. Think Nixon, George Ryan, Lee Daniels. Think the last GOP Congress.
Whenever the last chapter is written of Mike Madigan’s history, he will likely be remembered as one of the most powerful ellected leaders in our state’s history. He’ll also be remembered as a man who used that power to protect the rights of working men and women, to protect future generations from unchecked borrowing and spending, to protect the civil rights of women, minorities and gays and lesbians, and to protect consumers from special interests like Commonwealth Edison.
Has Madigan made compromises along the way to maintain a Democratic majority? Certainly; but if he hadn’t, the record of Democratic achievement under his stewardship as both Speaker and Democratic Party Chairman would have been brief indeed. Voters can and have judged Madigan and the Democrats based on their records. Partisans see what they want, but independent Illinoisians are rewarding the Democrats with larger pluralities every year.
- Jeff Trigg - Tuesday, Jan 16, 07 @ 11:50 am:
Have any of these editorials pointed out that more than 40% of the GA races were unopposed last year or that more typically 50% of GA races are unopposed? At the same when Illinois has the worst ballot access requirements in the world? Nope. I’d suggest there are bigger fish to fry than shifting funds. Greg mentioned gerrymandering and that is a much, much bigger problem than campaign finaces.
- Lovie's Leather - Tuesday, Jan 16, 07 @ 12:40 pm:
People are still crying about limiting contributions, but it doesn’t mean a thing unless you limit the amount a congressman can spend!
- Squideshi - Tuesday, Jan 16, 07 @ 4:56 pm:
Money may, or may not, buy votes; but it certainly does give the wealthy an advantage. Keep giving the wealthy advantages in our political marketplace; and continue to encourage candidates to pander to wealthy campaign contributors, who represent a small percentage of the population, and you’re already half way down the road to Plutocracy. Elections should be about ideas–a marketplace in which people buy ideas with their votes–not about who is the best fundraiser or who has the wealthiest friends. We need nothing less than full public financing of public elections.
- Squideshi - Tuesday, Jan 16, 07 @ 4:57 pm:
The link to Plutocracy in my last post should point here.