Politic$
A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor discusses the emergence of so-called 527s in the state political arena. The most compelling point raised in the article:
First, we need more trains. Who is not enchanted by the idea of Harry Truman pulling into small town America, delivering a stump speech, and then chugging off to the next bastion of Americana several miles across the plain? That is to say, who is not completely baffled by the fact that both George Bush and John Kerry can each appear simultaneously in more than four noncontiguous battleground states, thanks to modern transportation technology? Perhaps the frenetic motion of national candidates reflects the size and diversity of the country or our postmodern culture and its TV commercial attention span. But I think it is reasonable to assume that a candidate who tries to pander to all places simultaneously cannot adquately pander to any single one. As political consumers, we are delivered a product as bland and generic as those champagne-colored mid-market sedans, aiming for the most common denominator, rather than our highest passions. So the first reform has to do with the pace and depth of campaigning.
Second, a moratorium on television advertising. We do not need to be sold on a candidate like we need to be sold on a box of smooth Philadelphia Cream Cheese or low-carb soda. We need to be convinced of a candidates merits and partisan advertising is rarely convincing. Instead, it only validates what one already believes and is typically without any merit whatsoever. And so we easily throw the packaged political sentiment on the junkheap of our consciousness where reside all the infomercials for electronic rotisseries and self-hair cutting systems we have ever seen. Politics becomes cheap and disposable. We need to reject the commodification of our politics, so brazenly and hideously on display this past election. And, because television ads are the overwhelming reason for such absurd campaign costs, this measure would a) cut those Madison Avenue fatcats down to size, who are making millions out of the pockets of election contributors and b) mean that campaigns are significantly cheaper. It would also blunt the influence of large corporations who talk mostly with their advertising money, and rarely by hitting the streets to talk with voters.
Third, iron-clad disclosure laws to reveal the paper trail behind so-called non-partisan political organizations. Every dollar and its provenance needs to be documented and filed in the public domain.
Named for the section of the tax code that gives them tax-exempt status, 527s have no contribution or spending limits. More important, 527 contributions do not count against an individual's limit per campaign cycle. Thus, a contributor who is allowed to give only $95,000 to candidates and political committees during the biennial election cycle can donate millions to 527s à la George Soros.As we saw with this election's spate of "issue ads" by such suspect groups as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the current campaign finance reform does little to actually reduce the impact of cold, hard cash on an election - as the article suggests, the reform now means "candidates have deniability when negative ads crop up." If it is the case that unscrupulous interests will exploit the laws to the fullest to elect their candidate no matter what, and if the ultimate goal of reform is to reduce the influence special interests (such as corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals) have on the political process, what other reforms are needed?
First, we need more trains. Who is not enchanted by the idea of Harry Truman pulling into small town America, delivering a stump speech, and then chugging off to the next bastion of Americana several miles across the plain? That is to say, who is not completely baffled by the fact that both George Bush and John Kerry can each appear simultaneously in more than four noncontiguous battleground states, thanks to modern transportation technology? Perhaps the frenetic motion of national candidates reflects the size and diversity of the country or our postmodern culture and its TV commercial attention span. But I think it is reasonable to assume that a candidate who tries to pander to all places simultaneously cannot adquately pander to any single one. As political consumers, we are delivered a product as bland and generic as those champagne-colored mid-market sedans, aiming for the most common denominator, rather than our highest passions. So the first reform has to do with the pace and depth of campaigning.
Second, a moratorium on television advertising. We do not need to be sold on a candidate like we need to be sold on a box of smooth Philadelphia Cream Cheese or low-carb soda. We need to be convinced of a candidates merits and partisan advertising is rarely convincing. Instead, it only validates what one already believes and is typically without any merit whatsoever. And so we easily throw the packaged political sentiment on the junkheap of our consciousness where reside all the infomercials for electronic rotisseries and self-hair cutting systems we have ever seen. Politics becomes cheap and disposable. We need to reject the commodification of our politics, so brazenly and hideously on display this past election. And, because television ads are the overwhelming reason for such absurd campaign costs, this measure would a) cut those Madison Avenue fatcats down to size, who are making millions out of the pockets of election contributors and b) mean that campaigns are significantly cheaper. It would also blunt the influence of large corporations who talk mostly with their advertising money, and rarely by hitting the streets to talk with voters.
Third, iron-clad disclosure laws to reveal the paper trail behind so-called non-partisan political organizations. Every dollar and its provenance needs to be documented and filed in the public domain.
posted by Jon at 11:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home