Money still tells tale of U.S. governance
It's been a sobering several days for Americans who believe that power should belong to the best qualified, not the highest bidder, the most effective fund-raiser, or the wealthiest. Last Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down longstanding limits on corporate political spending, effectively turning the 2010 campaign into a series of potential skirmishes between moneyed influence peddlers and rival moneyed influence peddlers.
The Thursday prior, moderate Repulican Tom Campbell, polling second in his quest for the GOP nomination for governor of California, dropped that bid and switched to the U.S. Senate race. Did Campbell, a former member of the House of Representatives, suddenly run out of solutions to the state's economic quagmire? Hardly. He simply concluded that he couldn't match his opponents' financial firepower.
Campbell's departure leaves former eBay chief Meg Whitman (estimated personal fortune: $1.4 billion) and state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner ($223 million) to outspend each other. Each has pumped more than $19 million of personal cash into the campaigns, a level of spending far beyond Campbell's means.
Now, if he hopes to unseat Sen. Barbara Boxer, the three-term Democratic incumbent, Campbell must first defeat another GOP multi-millionaire: Carly Fiorina, whose fortune includes a Hewlett-Packard golden parachute estimated to have been as much as $42 million. Conservative Orange County Assemblyman Chuck DeVore is also in the race. Even if he wins the nomination, Campbelll will have to deal with Boxer's deep pockets, as she has no serious competition from her party.
But perceptive Americans hold this truth to be self-evident: U.S. politics, from the beginning, have been dominated by wealth. Big-money candidates usually represent big-money interests. Indeed, Congress is full of millionaires. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent millions from his personal fortune and won re-election in 2008.
Is this what the Founding Fathers intended? A republic led by the richest and most powerful who are looking out for No. 1, or a republic in which all classes are equally represented in the legislative halls? We think the latter is a check against the concentration of power and the inevitable establishment of tyranny. As we know, the founders weren't very keen on tyranny, and that's why our legislators are paid a salary -- to encourage candidates from lower financial classes to seek office. After all, if only the rich can afford to spend a few years in public service, who will they likely serve?
The founders rebelled against the most powerful plutocracy in the world, an empire led by men who were born into splendid power, intractable and unaccountable to the masses. Our framers risked life and limb to throw off that plutocracy's financial and individual oppression. Look what we've done with the gift of their sacrifice.
