Putting the Fun in Fundraising:
I read somewhere, and I cannot remember where, that when it's all said and done (i.e. the election is over), Barack Obama will still have in his coffers enough money to finance two complete Prime Minister elections in Great Britain. The Obama campaign has raised over a half a billion dollars. Remember, Obama once pledged to use public funds in this election, which would have limited him to using something like $84 million, or about 19% of his current store. It certainly was more expedient to repudiate that pledge. Does this not speak to character? Expediency over a promise. This is not the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from such a "transformational figure."
Do you think that this massive stock of assets gives an advantage to Obama? Of course it does. Obama ads outnumber McCain ads 8-1 in some markets. This means that you will see on television or hear on the radio eight Obama ads to every McCain ad. The Obama campaign has even purchased itself a channel on satellite TV. McCain has been effectively muffled; his messages drowned out in a sea of Obama ads. How is a candidate supposed to reach the droves of people who are not as "into politics" as some of us and do not watch debates? Whether or not these people are ignoring their civic duty by failing to be informed, seeing ads during "Prison Break" is the only exposure they have to candidates. This is not to say that these messages are accurate or offer a fair representation of either candidate. In fact, they make me sick most of the time. But you cannot deny that many Americans know nothing of many candidates except for what they see in these 30 second spots, as evident by 2004's Swift Boat advertisements.
Some might say that the influx of money simply points to the popularity of Obama, and this in turn shows that democracy is working even better than we had hoped; so many people are participating, after all. I'm sure that many are happy with the present system of campaign finance. Surely Democrats and liberals are pleased with the status quo at the moment, considering their candidate has an insurmountable advantage in assets. But I do not like our present system. For one, those who donate under $200 do not have to be disclosed. Surely, no one would think of abusing this loophole.
Money does not guarantee a win by any candidate, but it certainly helps to build a campaign infrastructure that is difficult to beat. It allows a candidate to control the message, if not smother the opposition's message altogether. How can we decide who is the better candidate if we struggle to hear the whimpers of the rest of the field? With all things being equal in terms of exposure or capital, which candidate has the better policies and plans? Which one is more qualified? Can we know? As I've said, for people worried about the economy and the day to day minutiae that bogs us down, they cannot possibly get an accurate representation of McCain or Ralph Nader or Bob Barr. Have you even heard of Charles Baldwin of the Constitution Party? No, you haven't. And neither have 300 million other people. It is impossible for third parties to compete for your attention during "Two and a Half Men." (Author's Note: I do not support Charles Baldwin. He is an idiot. But that's not the point.)
What will be the future of campaign finance? I do not know. There must be, somehow, a better way of doing all this. The most drastic is simply impose a cap on fundraising. Limit what can be raised and limit what the candidate him or herself can donate to their own campaign. One could even go so far as to give the candidates the money up front and make them budget their money as the campaign season(s) progresses. I'd say, go for it, but since the government long ago forgot how to balance a budget, this would do little to show us the fiscal planning ability of candidates. Others pose less drastic measures.
Mac McCorkle, a Democratic strategist favors
"a "United Way" approach: Corporations, philanthropists, other groups and individuals would be able to donate an unlimited amount, with transparency, that would go into an endowment — akin to the United Way charity fund — and be divided equally between the parties."
Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute
"leans toward "the idea of public matching funds as seed money for candidates, released much earlier than permitted by current law and not tied to spending limits." He writes that such a move might provide lesser-known candidates a better chance of building support for their candidacies before the primaries even begin."
Both ideas, and likely others, have merit. They should at least be discussed and considered. But from people interested in keeping power (i.e. those who refuse to legislate Congressional term limits), I don't see there being much discussion taking place in the future. Sentiment has, quite obviously, shifted from that of 1974 when the Federal Election Campaign Act was enacted in the wake of Watergate. And we lose out.
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse? Report it to Your Local Congressman Today!:
I have worked for the United States government as a uniformed service member, a civil service employee, and as a government contractor. I was not an important person; I did not hold a post that would be considered important by most people. But in my ten years of service to the government of the United States, I've seen the benefits and disadvantages of such work. First and foremost, I love it most of the time. I've gotten to see the world and advance my nation's causes as well. I've been to Europe, Asia, Central America, and the Middle East. I've traveled all over the country. Sometimes I was lucky enough to be able to afford bringing my wife along. But never once has my employer (the taxpayer) paid for my wife's plane ticke, per diem, or billeting. But I wasn't, say, the governess of Alaska.
As someone who's had to justify and provide proof (for good reason) for expenditures as small as a few dollars worth of long term parking at an airport and the travel fee Travelocity charges my credit card when I make official travel arrangements, little makes me seethe more than a public servant, the governess for example, who charges the public for plane tickets for their kids. There is tremendous oversight for "the little guy" in public service. Apparently, little applies to "the big guys."
Sarah Palin has charged to the state of Alaska $21,012 for 64 one way and 12 round trip commercial flights for her daughters since December 2006 when she took office. Worse, she or someone in her staff ordered changes to previously filed expense reports to make it look like they were also on official business. Wow. Changing filed reports after the fact sure doesn't suggest anything inappropriate.
She simply wanted her daughters with her so she could spend more time with them. This isn't an option frequent travelers like myself have unless we pay for it ourselves, which is as it should be. She really had two ethical options: to pay for their travel and lodging herself, or quite her job to spend more time with her family. She chose neither. Rules only apply so far up the chain, apparently.
What's worse is that she didn't even stay in cheap(er) hotels. When my peers and I travel for work, we have to make sure we get the government per diem rate. Sometimes that means we stay in nice hotels. Actually, from my perspective, most of the hotels you can get at the government per diem rate are pretty nice. However, Sarah Palin's choice on a trip to NY was the Essex House hotel, which cost Alaska $707.29 a night for four nights, which is but a measly $283.29 over the government per diem rate for Manhattan. I suppose though, that her constituents in Alaska should be happy, as the four Palin girls shared one room.
Supposedly there is a law that states that childrens' travel expenses can be reimbursed and not taxed when when they travel on official state business. Fine and dandy. When I conduct official business, my expenses are reimbursed. But usually my official duties do not entail hanging out with mom and dad at the opening of a dog sled race, or attending a function to announce the winners of a seafood competition. There's really no reason for these kids to be on official trips, even to help. Surely it must violate some sort of labor law if they're under 16 anyway, and surely there are plenty of volunteers or other hired help. Must it be Palin's daughters? My family doesn't have their travel expenses reimbursed when helping me during "official duties." That's silly, pampering, nonsense.
Sarah Palin's fraud, waste, and abuse goes beyond simply paying for her kids' travel and lodging. Apparently, she charged the state $17,000 in per diem so she could stay in her own home for 300 nights. Her home is 40 miles from a satellite office in Anchorage. People commute that distance to and from work every day day and they don't get per diem. They don't even get their gas bills reimbursed. The difference is, they're regular people, not governors. This is outrageous to me.
How about another instance of frivolous spending on behalf of our public servants. Official portraits are painted of Presidents. Great. That's a good tradition to have. But apparently, Cabinet secretaries get them too. Problem is, these things cost between $7,500 to $50,000. Do Cabinet members really need a portrait? Aren't they generally well enough off to afford to buy one of their own if they so badly need one? This article is even better, breaking down some of the costs. Rick Dubik, the Commerce Department's director of administration, informs us that $30,000 is actually cheap, and that some artists charge $75,000 for the service. He says this as if we, the public, are getting some sort of bargain out of his boss, Secretary Carlos Gutierrez's $35,000 portrait. Who says the government doesn't try to save us some money, especially in these uncertain economic times? After all, we could have ended up spending $59,000 on the portrait for National Cancer Institute director Andrew von Eschenbach rather than the $19,000 it cost us. Wait, you don't know who Andrew von Eschenbach is? Funny, come to think of it, neither do I.
Consider this: Donald Rumsfeld is getting another portrait, since he already has one from his first stint as Defense Secretary from 1975-1977. This second one will cost us $46,790, or just a shade under the median household income in 2007. I should tell you, however, that Rumsfeld cannot afford this luxury as a disclosure report filed with the Office of Government Ethics revealed that he was worth a meager $53-175 million.
Let's keep on keepin' on America!
Fun Facts from the World Series:
The National Anthem, even when sung by the Backstreet Boys doing a terrible impression of a barbershop quartet, can still elicit from me goosebumps and the occasional tear. Also, an 8 pm start actually means an 8:45 first pitch because Fox must cut to commercial break every 3 minutes. After the commercial break, Joe Buck gives us the starting lineup brought to us by Bud Light, or scouting report brought to us by Nissan, or pregame show segment brought to us by Taco Bell. Trivia is brought to us by Aflac. The game starts 45 minutes late because of the need to have commercials, but commercials riddle the telecast...fishy...And remember those "first pitch ceremonies" where someone comes out and throws the first pitch? Yeah, didn't happen. Or it did, and I got to watch the new Chevy commercial instead.
Word of the Day: (Brought to you by Dictionary.com...) Synecdoche (si-NEK-duh-kee) (noun): A figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole or whole for a part or general for the special or vice versa.
On This Day in History: (Brought to you by...uh...history..) Marcus Junius Brutus, of tryannicide fame, commits suicide after being beaten by Mark Antony and Octavian in the Second Battle of Philippi (42 BCE). Valentinian III wins the life lottery and is elevated as Roman Emperor at six years old (425 CE). Britains first Parliament meets (1707). Abraham Lincoln suspends for all military cases the writ of habeas corpus in Washington, DC (1861). The first heavier than air flight in Europe takes place when Alberto Santos-Dumont flies an airplane near Paris (1907). Fittingly, the first use of an airplane in war takes place when an Italian pilot takes off from Libya to observe Turkish lines during the Turco-Italian War (1911). Twenty-five to thirty thousand women march on Fifth Avenue to advocate their right to vote (1915). Lenin calls for the October Revolution (1917). Numerous WWII actions (1941-1944). The UN General Assembly meets for the first time (1946). The US Marine barracks and French army barracks in Lebanon are hit by suicide bombers, killing 241 US service men and 58 French troops (1983). Apple releases the iPod (2001).
"A lie told often enough becomes truth." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
No comments:
Post a Comment