Once upon a time, in Washington DC, I was invited to join a weekly poker game. The first week, I found myself in a cash game with no limit on bets or raises. I rarely got to see the cards of the successful gambler that night, because the outcome of more hands was determined by reckless betting than shrewd card playing. That particular version of poker is called “rich man wins.” “Rich man wins,” is also an apt description of the electoral politics system in the U.S. Most the elected officials in Washington get there by outspending their opponents. Congress passed and the president signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms this year, but it seems the political appointees at the Federal Elections Commission will make sure the legislative intent of Congress will not survive into practical application.
But that’s Washington. Out here in America, people are still disgusted by the corrupting influence of money in politics; we’re likely to become even more disgusted by the second week of November. In 1997, Vermont tried to do something about it by passing the most progressive campaign finance law in the country. Although the law didn’t apply to federal elections, it set strict limits on money that could be spent on state races and the amount of money candidates could receive from parties and political action committees. The law was to have gone into effect for the 2000 election, but in the middle of that campaign a federal judge here in the Green Mountain State ruled spending caps and limits on party contributions are unconstitutional. No sooner than that ruling came down than the Democratic and Republican national parties each dumped a half million dollars into the governor’s race, which Democrat Howard Dean won. Now he wants to run for president. By that, of course, I mean he’s out raising money as fast as he possibly can.
Low and behold, two weeks ago, the Second Circuit of the federal Court of Appeals in New York said Vermont’s campaign finance law is indeed constitutional. On behalf of the two-to-one majority, Judge Chester Straub wrote, “Vermont has shown that, without expenditure limits, its elected officials have been forced to provide privileged access to contributors in exchange for campaign money.” There it is, plain as day, someone finally said it. If you want attention from a politician, you have to give him or her money.
It’s good to have all this out in the open, but the bad news is that the same people who dragged this to court in the first place – the Republican Party and the Right to Life Committee – are appealing the decision. You may wonder why the Right to Life Committee is involved in a campaign finance lawsuit; you would not be alone. Perhaps they feel the right to life includes the right to purchase political favors.
The worse news is that the provisions of Vermont’s campaign finance law will probably not go into effect until all these legal maneuvers have run their course. That’s too bad, because Vermont is the worse for it. It’s remarkable how many millionaires occupy or are running for the top offices in this state. By no means do they represent the average Vermonter.
The worst news is that the last house on Legal Street is the Supreme Court. The Rehnquist Court is proving in case after case that five of its members constitute one of the most anti-democratic majorities in U.S. history. There is very little chance they will favor the penniless voters over the moneyed interests.
All these years later and I’m still stuck in the same game – rich man wins. The real losers in this game are the American people, because there could be candidates out there with some great cards to play, but they can’t get in the game, because they can’t afford the ante.
Rich Man Wins
Once upon a time, in Washington DC, I was invited to join a weekly poker game. The first week, I found myself in a cash game with no limit on bets or raises. I rarely got to see the cards of the successful gambler that night, because the outcome of more hands was determined by reckless betting than shrewd card playing. That particular version of poker is called “rich man wins.” “Rich man wins,” is also an apt description of the electoral politics system in the U.S. Most the elected officials in Washington get there by outspending their opponents. Congress passed and the president signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms this year, but it seems the political appointees at the Federal Elections Commission will make sure the legislative intent of Congress will not survive into practical application.
But that’s Washington. Out here in America, people are still disgusted by the corrupting influence of money in politics; we’re likely to become even more disgusted by the second week of November. In 1997, Vermont tried to do something about it by passing the most progressive campaign finance law in the country. Although the law didn’t apply to federal elections, it set strict limits on money that could be spent on state races and the amount of money candidates could receive from parties and political action committees. The law was to have gone into effect for the 2000 election, but in the middle of that campaign a federal judge here in the Green Mountain State ruled spending caps and limits on party contributions are unconstitutional. No sooner than that ruling came down than the Democratic and Republican national parties each dumped a half million dollars into the governor’s race, which Democrat Howard Dean won. Now he wants to run for president. By that, of course, I mean he’s out raising money as fast as he possibly can.
Low and behold, two weeks ago, the Second Circuit of the federal Court of Appeals in New York said Vermont’s campaign finance law is indeed constitutional. On behalf of the two-to-one majority, Judge Chester Straub wrote, “Vermont has shown that, without expenditure limits, its elected officials have been forced to provide privileged access to contributors in exchange for campaign money.” There it is, plain as day, someone finally said it. If you want attention from a politician, you have to give him or her money.
It’s good to have all this out in the open, but the bad news is that the same people who dragged this to court in the first place – the Republican Party and the Right to Life Committee – are appealing the decision. You may wonder why the Right to Life Committee is involved in a campaign finance lawsuit; you would not be alone. Perhaps they feel the right to life includes the right to purchase political favors.
The worse news is that the provisions of Vermont’s campaign finance law will probably not go into effect until all these legal maneuvers have run their course. That’s too bad, because Vermont is the worse for it. It’s remarkable how many millionaires occupy or are running for the top offices in this state. By no means do they represent the average Vermonter.
The worst news is that the last house on Legal Street is the Supreme Court. The Rehnquist Court is proving in case after case that five of its members constitute one of the most anti-democratic majorities in U.S. history. There is very little chance they will favor the penniless voters over the moneyed interests.
All these years later and I’m still stuck in the same game – rich man wins. The real losers in this game are the American people, because there could be candidates out there with some great cards to play, but they can’t get in the game, because they can’t afford the ante.