Money in Elections Doesn’t Mean Much: Lobbyist Money Does

 Posted:  October 6, 2014

There has been a lot of effort expended by Tom Udall and crew to tie money in politics with depriving voters of a chance to have a say. In fact, Tom Udall has been conspicuous in supporting a Constitutional amendment to give Congress the responsibility to patrol money in elections and try to control which parties and politicians get money and how much. It is his contention that the rich are buying elections and buying influence.

While this might seem to be a true statement, the facts don’t bear it out. Politicians are spending more and more on getting elected and thus keeping challengers from competing because they can’t raise the sums of money the incumbents do, voters are voting not to vote.

As the cost of elections goes up, voter turnout is barely increasing. Between 1998 and 2010 the cost of getting elected rose 100% but voter turnout rose only 3%.

So, we could conclude that taking money out of politics will dampen the turnout even more.

We could also conclude that all the furor is silly because all this money spent is not convincing anyone that getting out to vote is all that important. Why should we be concerned about voters being influenced when they are not even going to the polls?

Of far more interest to us is the fact that legislators routinely receive money from lobbyists prior to all big bills they vote for. They get this money from both sides of the issue and can use this money to enrichen their campaign chest. The longer they are in Congress the more money they have and the more unbeatable they are.

We would pay more deference to Tom Udall if he proposed a law that said Congressmen could not accept any more money from lobbyists – period.

Until he does something like that, he is just a grandstander, a pretender, and an incumbent who wants to improve his re-election odds.

Full article here >>>.

Comments are closed.