I once thought BlueMassGroup was a great place to be exposed to critical thoughts regarding our flawed political system. But in writing about one of the major driving forces in corrupting our politics (and warping meaningful policy solutions to address climate change, health care and other progressive issues), I was surprised to find muted or actual support for the status quo.
But I’ll try again, not so much as thinking it will change anything (I am not insane) but as an outlet to vent some steam about our corrupt (but completely legal) political system and (through their silence) the acquiescence of fellow progressives. I’m referring to the myth that pretends any American can run for political office and be a public servant. But as we all know, that is BS and the obvious example looking at us in the face is the upcoming Democratic US Senate primary election this September.
Putting aside the many complaints from many BMG readers that we should not even have a primary because…because…because why again? (Oh ya, we already have someone in that position, so we shouldn’t have a primary.)
I’d just like to focus on a simple principle our political system should adhere to and that is every candidate starts at the same starting line and has the same advantages (and challenges) as other candidates running for the same office. I don’t think that is a controversial idea and, while not written into the four corners of the law, this idea is clearly a bedrock value of our democratic republic. But we all know that is a fantasy and the system is rigged.
Why does the incumbent get to start the election with more than $4 million in the bank?
Why does one of the challengers–an entrenched political himself–get to start the race with about $4 million in the bank and then can have his father spend more than $2 million to support his son, from a campaign account that has been dormant for nearly 20 years…TWENTY F’ING YEARS AGO!! (Never mind that Marty Meehan could enter this race tomorrow, with a $4 million war chest he’s been sitting on…keeping his options open).
This kind of arms race would put any well-qualified, but not financially wealthy person, at a great disadvantage (understatement of the year). So that explains why one well-qualified challenger has the personal resources to “loan” her campaign $3 million so she can be competitive with her two challengers.
So the message is clear: Any middle-class person should never expect to represent the people in the US Senate (or Congress for that matter). The rules are written is such a way that–realistically–the rich, or those wanting to suck-up to rich people or special interests groups, can run for office.
Perhaps you feel that we want successful people running for Senate and that translates into being financially successful? Really? Well, you know who I’d like to see run for US Senate? It is someone I’ve admired from afar and know she has the brains, passion and accomplishments to effectively serve the people of Massachusetts. But her accomplishments are not the sexy media-driven show-horse “work” that candidates typically claim. It is accomplishments helping the most vulnerable in society–children. Children who are trapped and lost in our system of “justice”. Many BMGers know I’m referring to Amber Paw (who most of know by name, but I’ll keep her anonymous, as I would like to stay)
But we’ll never elect people like Amber Paw into a position of policy making, because the rules are to hard–damn near impossible–to get her elected. Instead we continue with our group insanity: maintaining a system were only established politicians and rich people can run for office. Continuing this system–looking blindly at all the PAC money raised in the past by Kennedy/Markey while we heap praise on any hollow “people’s pledge” that they are attempting to BS voters with–is guaranteed to maintain the status quo that continues to stymie progressive change in America.
We need across the board public financing of campaigns. That is the only way very accomplished people who work for middle-class pay (to defend children for example) can ever have a chance to represent their peers in politics. It’s time to stop this rigged system that only helps the rich and the well-connected.
I wouldn’t use the term rigged since that implies the rules are different for some candidates than for others, which is different from saying that some candidates come with advantages that others don’t have. I’d be open to rules saying that excess campaign funds have to be disposed of and ultimately favor public financing.
The rules are clearly different for different candidates running…that’s my point. If you’re an incumbent federal office holder, you can use the many years of fundraising that you’ve build up, in this election. If you’re a state office holder, you can’t use a dime of any money you raised over the years to run for the US Senate. And if you’re rich, you can spend as much as you can afford on your race. And if your middle-class, then you have the honor of starting with zero money while your competitors have a huge head start in funding.
How do you say the the rules ARE NOT different for some candidates compared to others??? This example is the dictionary definition of different rules for different people. I’m really curious how you feel all (potential) candidates operate under the same rules as other candidates. (And let’s not forget the hypothetical middle-class candidate that is not running…because the point is the rules are so unfavorable to them, that no one in the middle class would run when the rules are rigged against them).
Also, being “open” to laws that prevent building up campaign war chests and having public funding is weak. We’ll never, never come close to achieve these goals with people being “open” to the idea. Given that the politicians write these rules and changing these rules are against their self-interest (we’d find bi-partisan agreement among incumbents opposing such changes), nothing will ever change if activists are just “open” to the idea. No, the people have got to put the pressure on and make them change them rules.
And again, if we don’t replace the funding of our elections by private interests and have “the people” pay for them, we’ll never pass laws that really tackle climate change or affordable, quality health care and other important issues. So to be merely “open” to public financing is basically saying, “we really don’t need big changes in environmental legislation or curbing drug pricing” because none of that will happen with out reforming how our political funding in the US occurs.
I declare myself open when something sounds good in theory, but since I haven’t had a chance to study all the ramifications or detect unintended consequences I don’t want to lock myself in.
The rules are the same for everyone. It’s not as if certain candidates are allowed $1000 donations while others can get $5000 donations. It’s not as if certain candidates can dip into their state accounts for federal office while others can’t. We can certainly make things fairer, but there will always be some incumbent advantage which I’m not convinced is a bad thing. I think Markey is a perfect example of somebody with a warchest who DOES support the policy changes you mention.
Wow. I would submit that you do in fact believe we should have different rules for different people running for the same office. Apparently you do think it’s ok that candidates start at different starting lines, based on financial resources at the beginning of the race.
Also, I’m not sure that Ed Markey, who has served more than 40 years as everything has gone to hell in this country, is the answer to making real change happen. Real changes like campaign reform that would force him and his colleagues to give up their millions of dollar war-chests.
And even if Ed Markey is immune to the special interest pressures of raising millions of dollars, if this system continues, it does and will corrupt others. The current system of money in politics is warping our policy results. You are completely wrong to think that we can achieve the meaningful changes needed, if we keep the same private campaign funding system that we have.
That is a canonical example of fallacious guilt-by-association.
My takeaway from this comment is that you don’t care one iota about campaign finance reform. It appears that instead you simply want to dismiss every incumbent.
It seems Pogo has been sore on Markey for a while.
He was pretty harsh on all the candidates running, and rightly so. It’s ridiculous Meehan still has a war chest, it’s ridiculous Kennedy can get money from his dads dormant account, and it’s ridiculous Buckley v. Valero allows the wealthy to “loan themselves” millions of dollars. Now I once drew a salary from a candidate doing just that, and I currently support Kennedy and supported Markey in the past.
The bigger point is about cleansing our politics and making every candidate play by the same rules, all of this stuff should be illegal. My friends aunt ran as an MEP and TD for the Irish Green Party. She got 3k from the government for the EUP campaign and 5k for the Dail. She won the former and lost the latter, but her opponents got the same funds. I think such a system here would open up who could run and also give greater viability to non-traditional candidates.
Sorry but you sound like a Trumper dismissing criticism against him because the messenger is not a Trump supporter. Is that the litmus test you’ve set for evaluating someone’s views…whether they support your candidates or not?
You are still confusing rules with advantages. When people or teams compete sometimes one side has an advantage. Sometimes one team is just better than the other ability-wise, but unless one team is allowed to use steroids and the other not, for example, it’s not rigged. I’ve already said I’m sympathetic to levelling the playing field, but I strongly object to the use of the term “rigged” in this context.
You and I live on different planets. Unfair rules, or rules that clearly favor one kind of candidate over another (like a rule that says if you have a federal account already, you can use that money to run for another federal account, whereas if you have a state account, you can’t use it for a federal race) by definition give one candidate an advantage over another.
As for your contention that one team/candidate maybe just better than the others–in the context of who can use existing money and who has to start from zero–is a flawed and unreasonable comment in the world I live in. As for objecting to the use of the word “rigged”…have you gone to an Elizabeth Warren event lately? She uses that word about 5 times in event outlining how unfair the rules on today’s political and economic system is.
I agree with her about how the economic system is rigged, but still disagree that election processes are.
At one point, Abraham Lincoln was the “status quo” and he was re-elected. Same for FDR. “actual support for the status quo” is not divorced from critical thought. Assuming it is, however, is…
Still, a good idea is a good idea, despite all the negativity in these comments. It would definitely be good if everyone started out the same at a certain date 6 or 12 months before the election. Maybe these war chests could be liquidated right after the election, and not be allowed again until a certain date before the next election.
Senators and Congressmen spend an obscene amount of time raising money (while the taxpayers are paying their salaries).. The can only do this because the current law permits them to establish artificial entities which can receive donations and get special tax treatment. Why not regulate these entities to give everyone a level playing field?
For the record, I prefer Markey over Kennedy at this point. But, like Pogo, I would vote for Amberpaw in a minute if she were on the ballot. She was fighting to stop the government from breaking up families years before the virtue signalling on this blog.
For the record I would vote for her over the Senate competition too. I really wish a lot of us would or could follow Tommy into public office, and I appreciate he waited until he was sure it would not disrupt his family until he ran.
We need citizen legislators again. I know its unpopular here, but that is part of the reason I support term limits, especially at the state level. We should want our kids baseball coaches, fellow PTA/PTO members, and neighbors and friends take a few years out of their professional lives to serve the public in elected office. I know a few teachers, our own Mark Bail, but also some Revere teachers who live in other districts that are school committee or town meeting or town board members. I think we need more of that at the state house and more of that in Congress. I’m even open to the government by lot idea where it can be like jury duty. We gotta break open government service to ordinary people again.