Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Is Politics Only to be for the Rich? Part One

We want Everyman to be able to run for office, but we keep supporting efforts to ensure only the rich are able to.

A piece of national legislation has recently been introduced which more than ever will make politics a rich man’s game if it passes. It has free speech implications as well.

Representative Udall (D) of Colorado is sponsoring a bill lin Congress to prohibit members of a candidate’s immediate family from receiving a salary that comes from campaign funds. An example is a spouse who seves as a campaign manager, publicist, etc., for a candidate, and is paid. The perception is that this is just a way for the candidate to skim money into his own pocket. The perception is that an immediate family member does not actually perform any work in return for the money. This may or may not be true. Note, it MAY NOT be true. Should it not, however, be up to the donors to decide whether they are unhappy about a candidate putting a relative on the payroll, and withhold donations accordingly? Isn’t this the subset of free speech called “Put your money where your mouth is?” Which is the same type of free speech restricted by campaign finance laws.

Let’s look at the situation from a slightly different perspective.  It is already true that most candidates tend to be independent business people of one kind or another. Many people wondered why I had not been much involved in politics in the past. The reason is simple: I worked for a large company that wasn’t about to give me time off to campaign, and I certainly couldn’t afford to quit my job on the off chance I might win an election to a post that would earn me a living. (As it was, my family suffered economically because of the campaign.)

Further, most households are now two-income households: both the husband and wife work. If one spouse is sacrificing their salary or attention to their business in order to campaign, should the other spouse also be expected to campaign for free? I say this because the United States still has a double standard where the wife of a candidate is expected to show up regularly with her husband, or instead of her husband, while it seems to be understood that the husband of a candidate is off earning a living and cannot make that many public appearances. An example: we frequently saw Dacia Shaw with husband Jeff on the campaign trail, even though she has a full time job that requires travel, while I don’t believe I ever saw Buffie McFadyen’s husband accompany her, even though she admits she has one. Somewhere.

I worked for a company where nepotism was the norm. Sometimes the child of an executive was a goof-off, but usually they were hard-working and eager learn. Because if they weren’t, Mom or Dad would find out and have words to say about it. The argument that relatives don’t do any work for their campaign pay is certainly not always true. And would you rather hire a qualified relative who can be counted on to be loyal and give their all for a campaign, or have that relative off working for some other party while you pay some stranger to handle your chores?

Prohibiting relatives from being on campaign payrolls means that only the rich who can afford to spend days and weeks away from their businesses or jobs will run for office. In many cases this is already true. The public wants to elect people who are poor working stiffs just like them (the Clintons, poor things, she had to work!), without admitting that poor working stiffs can’t afford it.

Less...