We're sick and tired of Democrats complaining about 'too much money' in politics
The Supreme Court's decision about money in politics was correct. Congress has no business regulating how much anyone can spend in political campaigns. I'm OK with disclosure but limits are unacceptable. This is about free speech, as Luke Wachob reminded us last week. Nevertheless, the reaction from the left was hysterical.
My friend Barry Casselman, known to many of us as The Prairie Editor, had a great post this week about money:
"Behind most of the rhetoric about money in politics is a game of seeking partisan advantage. Liberals denounce and condemn affluent Americans and corporations for trying “to buy” elections. Conservatives denounce and condemn labor unions for trying to do the same.
The historical fact is that money has played a role in American elections from almost the outset of the Republic. It is fair to say that special interest groups once did have an unfair advantage in promoting their candidates and causes. But the 20th century brought much more of an equilibrium to the financial aspect of elections, especially after 1936, and today both parties each have ample numbers of rich donors and large organizations participating in financing their election campaigns.
One of the most ludicrous and demonstrably false assumptions made these days, usually promoted by liberals and Democrats, is that rich persons and corporations are uniformly conservative and Republican. In fact, most of the “new rich” are liberals and Democrats. A new study shows that most of the millionaires in Congress are Democrats. Some of the richest Americans, many of them billionaires, give exclusively to Democrats and liberal causes. One hundred years ago, it was true, “big” business and corporate moguls were almost entirely Republicans, but that has long ceased to be so. Today, many of America’s richest citizens and largest corporations create a liberal public image about their politics, and routinely choose to support “progressive” and left-leaning candidates over conservative ones. They respond, furthermore, to politically-correct pressure from the left much more often than to conservative interests and principles.
Liberals like to single out such individuals as the Koch brothers (who contribute to conservative candidates and causes), but conveniently fail to mention George Soros, the Rockefeller family and many of the newly-created billionaires of the high tech industry (who contribute only to liberal candidates and causes).
In short, the discussion about money in politics has become a shell game devoid of honest debate."
Barry is right about the quality of the candidates. In other words, both sides will raise a lot of money in competitive elections. There are lots of people and groups willing to write checks to support one side or the other.
The key to winning an election is a good candidate, a clear message and character. Don't underestimate a little good luck as Mr Obama had when he ran for the US Senate in Illinois back in 2004.
Barry's viewpoint is valuable because he has seen quite a few campaigns in his illustrious and accomplished career.
My message to liberals this year, and conservatives in prior years, is to stop whining and give people a good reason to vote for them.