creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Mark Shields
Mark Shields
13 Dec 2014
Consider the Source

On election night in 1986, when John McCain won the U.S. Senate seat in Arizona long held by Republican … Read More.

6 Dec 2014
2016 Nominees: Truly Unconventional

Since 1952, nearly every battle for an open Republican presidential nomination when there has been no … Read More.

29 Nov 2014
Whom Do You Believe?

Last year, President Barack Obama made his position perfectly clear: Chuck Hagel "is an American patriot. ... … Read More.

The Price of Raising Political Money

Comment

Mark A. Hanna was a wealthy Cleveland businessman who shrewdly laid out the winning strategy and personally, out of pocket, paid all the costs required to secure the 1896 Republican presidential nomination for his fellow Ohioan William McKinley. Sometime after McKinley's election and re-election to the White House, Hanna, based upon his personal experience, offered this timeless insight: "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can't remember what the second one is."

The New York Times' Binyamin Appelbaum has become the latest in a growing number of scholars to argue that political money is not that influential in deciding the winners of congressional elections or even in affecting how the winners, once in office, will vote on policy. We should, Appelbaum writes, be less anxious about cash in campaigns because "over the past year, Americans spent more on almonds than on selecting their representatives in Congress."

To borrow the immortal phrase of Hollywood's Sam Goldwyn, "gentlemen, include me out." Forget the wealthy campaign donors, who — please take my word for it — almost always write their checks not out of altruism but fully expecting a "return" on their "investment." Instead, think about the typical House candidate, who — just to cover the costs of her campaign — has to raise an average of $18,000 a week, 52 weeks a year, every year. Beyond raising that war chest, if a congressman hopes to rise to a position of leadership within the House or to win appointment to a powerful House committee, then he has to raise money for his party's campaign committee.

This means going to a cramped cubicle at party headquarters and, several days a week, turning into a telemarketer, calling a list of people, most of whom you don't know, and begging for money.

Because you are provided the information on a sheet, you know what the potential check writer's legislative and policy priorities are. You emphasize how your voting record is in harmony with the potential contributor's values, and you are careful to avoid any potential areas of disagreement.

Because the member of Congress does this for hours on end every week, it means that the member is not spending his time meeting with and listening to his constituents or mastering a subject or getting to know personally his congressional colleagues and potentially collaborating on the public's business.

Beyond all that fundraising lies more fundraising. Why? Because of the legitimate fear that a misnamed "independent" committee, underwritten by anonymous big money, could spend millions against any at-risk incumbent, baselessly defaming and possibly destroying him politically for being sympathetic to child pornographers or worse. The one insurance policy many members of Congress believe they have against that career-threatening "nuclear option" is to stockpile millions in their personal campaign accounts — which means more hours putting the arm on everyone who lobbies you on any issue from school lunches to bridge repairs.

The casualties of the endless cycle of fundraising are, too often, the independence, integrity and ideals of those who become its prisoners, and sadly, there's an even greater loss of public trust and confidence in our own self-government.

To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2014 MARK SHIELDS

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM



Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;... Binyamin is wrong on this. If we do not live in a plutocracy we live in a partocracy and neither offers any hope for this country to achieve our objectives clearly laid out in the constitution and Delaration of Independence. If with political money, you can buy confusion, frustration, antipathy, mortification, disgust, or even ennui you can twist that advantage into political victory. The point of victory is out of the sight of the enemy, which to money, is the people. When you can limit the choices of the people while giving the impression that they still have a choice you have won no matter who is elected. People elected against great odds because they are brave and pure of heart soon find themselves corrupted by the need for a political edge. The will of the people is exhausted changing those people expected to be corroded in the marrow of the souls. The question is not only why we submit to this, but why we subject our fellow human beings to this corruption.

My mother, God Bless Her, believed that a child gone to hell took his mother with him. No mother would wish perdition on her child, and yet we elect our sons to the loss of their eternal souls, and for their thanks, they ruin us. This situation must end only because it cannot get any worse without it taking this whole people beyond the point of moral redemption.

Thanks....Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Dec 19, 2014 8:55 AM
The most remarkable thing is the media actually considers this phone-bank dexterity to lend credibility to the aspiring politician.
Cicero himself would be judged by the media inferior to Ted Cruz for his lack of money craving skills.
Comment: #2
Posted by: James Kossick
Sat Dec 20, 2014 6:54 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Mark Shields
Dec. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 22 Dec 2014
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 20 Dec 2014
Jamie Stiehm
Jamie StiehmUpdated 19 Dec 2014

5 Mar 2011 Open Mike 2011

18 May 2013 Second-Term Pitfalls

14 Jan 2012 Tolerant Americans 2012