Opponents of the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as secretary of education can take one benefit from Tuesday's vote: It taught us what really counts in the U.S. Senate.
It is not the opinion or desires of constituents exercising their right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Nor is it the outrage of so many American voters who are astounded that a woman with no experience in public schools — as a student, parent, employee, administrator, elected school board official or any other direct contact with public schools — would be nominated to lead public education in America. Switchboards on Capitol Hill were overloaded with phone calls from upset constituents telling their elected representatives not to confirm DeVos. Voice mail systems in congressional offices, both in Washington and in district offices, were overloaded with pleas from voters opposed to DeVos. Complaints about DeVos' nomination jammed email systems in congressional offices. Constituents who could get to their representatives' offices expressed in person their opposition to someone who denigrates public education and seems intent on destroying public schools by whatever means necessary.
No, none of that counts. All that matters in this information age, when it is so relatively easy to send a message or make a phone call to an elected representative, is not the voters' petitioning of elected officials; it is the money that the ultra-rich can bestow on political candidates. DeVos' one great qualification for her office is the millions of dollars she and her family have donated to (mostly Republican) candidates and elected officials. In North Carolina, where grassroots voters stormed the phones, email systems and mailboxes of their senators, DeVos had already made up the minds of Sen. Richard Burr and Sen. Thom Tillis with more than $100,000 in recent campaign contributions. A siege of the senators' offices, which is nearly what happened, would have made no difference. DeVos had those two votes paid for and locked down.
The First Amendment guarantees the right "to petition the government," but when the government is bought and paid for by wealthy donors, petitions are not worth the paper or the email application or the recorded voice mail they're written on.
Showing posts with label campaign financing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign financing. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Friday, April 11, 2014
Budget solution: Place a sales tax on members of Congress
Rep. Paul Ryan has a new budget outline, which the House has approved, despite no hope that the Senate will even consider it. This semblance of progress on balancing the federal budget gave me an idea:
Let's place a sales tax on members of Congress. Disabuse yourself of the notion that our representatives are not really beholden to the people who give them thousands or millions of dollars every day. Congress is for sale, and members are not even coy about it. The selling has become brazen. Despite what the Constitution might imply, Congress' real job is not to pass legislation, it is to raise money for the next election. And most members do it very well.
My proposal would force the nation to recognize the reality of the Citizens United and other Supreme Court decisions that make the selling of Congress the nation's most productive business. Instead of fighting this tidal wave, let's tax it.
Every dollar given to a member of Congress or candidate for Congress, his/her election campaign treasury, or any "third party" organization, including political parties, political action committees, so-called "voter education" groups or any other entity seeking to influence a congressional election shall be taxed at the rate of, let's say, 10%. This taxation would go into the U.S. treasury and would be counted as revenues in the federal budget. Once this influx of money balances the budget and pays off the federal debt, the taxation rate can be adjusted downward. We don't want to be greedy about this.
The advantages go far beyond the balancing of the budget. This tax would make nominally honest men and women of members of Congress. We had known all along they were for sale to the highest bidder; now they will have to admit it. Their admission of this fact would bolster federal revenues. It would also make moot the differences between personal income, campaign income and special-interest groups' income. All of them would be taxed equally because they are equivalently responsible for the selling of Congress. So what if the Supreme Court says corporations can poor millions of dollars into buying congressmen? At least we'll get tax revenue out of the transaction.
No doubt, soon after passage of the sales tax on Congress, members will be bragging about how much revenue their campaigns have contributed to the treasury.
Let's place a sales tax on members of Congress. Disabuse yourself of the notion that our representatives are not really beholden to the people who give them thousands or millions of dollars every day. Congress is for sale, and members are not even coy about it. The selling has become brazen. Despite what the Constitution might imply, Congress' real job is not to pass legislation, it is to raise money for the next election. And most members do it very well.
My proposal would force the nation to recognize the reality of the Citizens United and other Supreme Court decisions that make the selling of Congress the nation's most productive business. Instead of fighting this tidal wave, let's tax it.
Every dollar given to a member of Congress or candidate for Congress, his/her election campaign treasury, or any "third party" organization, including political parties, political action committees, so-called "voter education" groups or any other entity seeking to influence a congressional election shall be taxed at the rate of, let's say, 10%. This taxation would go into the U.S. treasury and would be counted as revenues in the federal budget. Once this influx of money balances the budget and pays off the federal debt, the taxation rate can be adjusted downward. We don't want to be greedy about this.
The advantages go far beyond the balancing of the budget. This tax would make nominally honest men and women of members of Congress. We had known all along they were for sale to the highest bidder; now they will have to admit it. Their admission of this fact would bolster federal revenues. It would also make moot the differences between personal income, campaign income and special-interest groups' income. All of them would be taxed equally because they are equivalently responsible for the selling of Congress. So what if the Supreme Court says corporations can poor millions of dollars into buying congressmen? At least we'll get tax revenue out of the transaction.
No doubt, soon after passage of the sales tax on Congress, members will be bragging about how much revenue their campaigns have contributed to the treasury.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Taxpayers foot bill for campaign 'reform'
In more than three decades in the newspaper business, I made it a point to keep out of politics — no yard signs, no bumper stickers, no precinct offices. And I expected those who worked for me to follow the same rules. Because politics is such an important part of news coverage and carries such volatility, I knew that any degree of partisanship could jeopardize our position as a neutral observer of the political scene.
One advantage of this policy was that I had a perfect excuse when I was approached for a campaign donation. Those donations are a public record, which could be used to question the fairness of an editorial endorsement or news coverage.
Now I'm out of that business and have been approached by an old friend who is running for N.C. Court of Appeals, I'm out of excuses. I met Harry Payne 40 years ago when his twin brother lived on my hall in college, and I had followed his political career with some interest — state legislator, commissioner of labor, and Employment Security Commission director. He emailed earlier this month to say he's running for Court of Appeals.
With taxpayer financing of judicial races, that should be an easy race for someone with Harry's credentials. After all, he has won statewide races before, when he had to raise all the campaign money himself. In this year's race, if he raises $26,000 from 225 or more voters contributing $10 to $500, the state will match his campaign fund on a two-to-one basis. Raising that much money in such small amounts is not easy, he says.
I'm willing to help Harry with a small donation, but the concept of taxpayer-financed elections has always bothered me. Although proponents like to call this system "voter-owned elections," the fact is that government will be collecting and disbursing money for the benefit of politicians. Your tax money will go to support candidates you might like, or you might abhor. Forcing someone to support, through taxation, the political career of someone with whom you disagree seems contrary to American values.
There's no doubt that the present system of endless fund-raising by politicians and the appearance that a wealthy few "own" politicians and call the shots in Raleigh and Washington is disgusting. But there must be a better way to reform the system than by forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for political ads that turn their stomachs. The McCain-Feingold campaign reform law chips away at the First Amendment by limiting political speech. A reform should reduce the influence of the wealthy few, including corporations and labor unions, without prohibiting vigorous political debate.
The low response rate for state and national campaign fund checkoffs on tax forms show how unpopular taxpayer financing of campaigns is. American taxpayers don't want to see their taxes go into political advertising. N.C. politicians have inserted this experiment into low-profile races for judgeships and Council of State races, but widening this plan will only be popular with the politicians who benefit from it.
One advantage of this policy was that I had a perfect excuse when I was approached for a campaign donation. Those donations are a public record, which could be used to question the fairness of an editorial endorsement or news coverage.
Now I'm out of that business and have been approached by an old friend who is running for N.C. Court of Appeals, I'm out of excuses. I met Harry Payne 40 years ago when his twin brother lived on my hall in college, and I had followed his political career with some interest — state legislator, commissioner of labor, and Employment Security Commission director. He emailed earlier this month to say he's running for Court of Appeals.
With taxpayer financing of judicial races, that should be an easy race for someone with Harry's credentials. After all, he has won statewide races before, when he had to raise all the campaign money himself. In this year's race, if he raises $26,000 from 225 or more voters contributing $10 to $500, the state will match his campaign fund on a two-to-one basis. Raising that much money in such small amounts is not easy, he says.
I'm willing to help Harry with a small donation, but the concept of taxpayer-financed elections has always bothered me. Although proponents like to call this system "voter-owned elections," the fact is that government will be collecting and disbursing money for the benefit of politicians. Your tax money will go to support candidates you might like, or you might abhor. Forcing someone to support, through taxation, the political career of someone with whom you disagree seems contrary to American values.
There's no doubt that the present system of endless fund-raising by politicians and the appearance that a wealthy few "own" politicians and call the shots in Raleigh and Washington is disgusting. But there must be a better way to reform the system than by forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for political ads that turn their stomachs. The McCain-Feingold campaign reform law chips away at the First Amendment by limiting political speech. A reform should reduce the influence of the wealthy few, including corporations and labor unions, without prohibiting vigorous political debate.
The low response rate for state and national campaign fund checkoffs on tax forms show how unpopular taxpayer financing of campaigns is. American taxpayers don't want to see their taxes go into political advertising. N.C. politicians have inserted this experiment into low-profile races for judgeships and Council of State races, but widening this plan will only be popular with the politicians who benefit from it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
