EQUALIZATION

David Brooks, of the New York Times, has a piece in this mornings paper, (October 10, 2014) making the point that when Citizens United was passed by the supreme court there were Democrats who felt the end of their party was at hand. Now several years later, according to Brooks, the monies spent by the Democrats are equal to, or even greater than, those being spent by the Republicans. In fact, according to his research, many of the candidates that lost elections actually had more money spent on their campaign than their opponents. So in Brook’s opinion the court’s ruling has not negatively impacted the election process in the way it was predicted to.

 I disagree. The truth is money has done more damage to the entire electoral process, and by implication, more to the detriment of our country, even if it has not resulted in getting people elected.

The fallacy in Brook’s argument goes to a concept I call equalization. That is if everyone spends the same amount of money on something it is the same as no one spending anything on it. Think about it, I spend one million to get my candidate elected and you spend half of that on your candidate, I have an advantage. But if you spend the same million as I do then we are equal and it will not be the amount of monies spent on the candidates but rather the message brought forth by each of them.

The real problem with Citizens United is it falsely gives the impression that the most money spent on one candidate versus another will actually win elections.  This theory has resulted in far too many people, with too much money to waste, coupled with their own personal agendas, spending foolish amounts of money on candidates that have no better chance at winning, if the other side spends the same amount on their candidate.

I often think of performance enhancing drugs, (PED’s), in sports. The athlete thinks taking drugs helps his/her cause by enhancing their performance.  But what happens if ALL athletes take the same drugs? Are we not back to square one? What the athlete using drugs is really saying is “I will take PED’s on the condition you don’t.  That way I do have an advantage”. In the end if everyone takes them it will be the same as if no one took them. It is cheating by looking for an artificial advantage not related to talent but requires secrecy so no one else does the same thing. Otherwise it makes no sense.

What Citizens United has done is to vastly increase the amount of money spent on elections under the false impression that the more spent will result in more winners, while it has taken out of the process the qualifications, ideas, strategies and plans of the candidates and replaced them with an addiction to raising money.

If the premise that more money breeds more winners was dropped by all candidates, they would spend less money, need less time to raise more and could focus on sharing their positive message with voters rather than overwhelming the voter with negative advertising focused on the other candidate’s shortcomings. 

 No, my argument with David Brooks is that money really has corrupted the election process. It has forced all elected officials and candidates into the delusion that the object of politics is raising money rather than solving problems. And, that is a disservice to all Americans.