Campaign Finance
We’re now, what, nine days from the election? So all the usual election year bullshit is pitching up toward fever right now. I’m hearing a lot of cruft about "campaign finance reform" this year, including the call to move to public funding for campaigns. This will apparently make politics "more fair."
First off, I’d just like to say that no fucking way do I want my tax dollars used to pay for the reelection of my scumbag senators, so all you public funding assholes can just go fuck yourselves. And just in case I didn’t swear enough to indicate how much distaste I have for that idea, I’d like to add this: fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.
Next, I have to ask you people why on earth you want to get money out of politics. You do realise that money is your voice, right? That if you remove money from politics by passing bullshit laws, all that means is that the people in power have a way easier time of staying in power? Seriously. Why do you think that Campaign Reform Act was "Bipartisan?" No points for guessing it’s because the people it benefits are 1) fat-cat Republicans, and 2) fat-cat Democrats. Contrary to what John McCain wants you to think, there won’t be any real "mavericks" getting into high office under McCain-Feingold, since, hey, guess what? That just means the parties that already have the most members and the most exposure have an easier time of getting more. That makes life rather difficult for the Libertarians, the Green Party, the Bible Constitution Party, the Whigs, the Anti-Masonic Party, but not, to be sure, the "Connecticut For Lieberman Party."
Those are all good points, but also: there is no evidence that campaign finance reform has ever met even its stated goal of lowering the cost of campaigns. Period. Campaigns did not get cheaper after McCain-Feingold passed, they didn’t get cheaper after the big round of campaign finance in the ’70s that established the FEC and the presidential public financing system, etc.
The other weird thing is that spending a bunch of money hardly guarantees you an election, contrary to public opinion. Witness the electoral failures of guys like Ross Perot and Steve Forbes. Guys like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet could easily spend double what Obama and McCain are spending, but do you really think that they’d win?
Comment by Stephen | 27 October 2008
Either one of them could buy *my* vote.
Comment by Ama | 27 October 2008
I’d vote for Gates as long his campaign promises included that he’d go by “Billy G” from now on, and that he’d admit that Vista was a total failure and a huge turd and that the next version of Windows would be called “Windows Un-Vista”.
Comment by Dave | 27 October 2008
Also, the Whigs are easily my favorite US political party of all time. They never had anything like a coherent platform because their main reason for existing was to oppose the Democrats. They were, in fact, nothing but an amalgamation of all the little “we’re not Democrats!” parties that kept springing up during that period in which there was really only one major party.
Also, they are, as far as I know, the only party in history to intentionally run four different candidates in one Presidential election in an attempt to game the Electoral College.
Comment by Dave | 27 October 2008