320 Years of History
Gold Member
Straightforward enough question. Forget about whether you like Trump or don't. That's not the point here. Ignore whether Trump wins or not; that also doesn't matter, and I'll explain why in a moment. The short is that one very rich man who has the political thoughts he has, to a material albeit not complete extent, opened his wallet and purchased an election.
Now, to me that just doesn't sit well. It doesn't, not because it's Trump who did it, but because it shows it can very conceivably be done. This is the first time in modern electoral history when we've seen that a charismatic individual with no public policymaking experience who has enough money in fact can, in a manner of speaking, purchase the U.S. Presidency via one of the two major parties.
Ross Perot sort of gave it a shot some years back, but he did it as an Independent, not on the Dem or Rep ticket. Mr. Perot even did pretty well, gaining about 20% of the popular vote, but zero electoral votes. Thus his run didn't demonstrate convincingly that one could in essence buy the Presidency.
The sum of money needed also is clearly "not that much." So far, Trump is projected to spend about $100M or so of his own money. For someone who's worth billions, that's not much at all. It's even doable for folks worth $500M to $1B because at that wealth level, one's lifestyle doesn't change because one may after the fact be a couple hundred million dollars less wealthy.
So just what are the implications of what Trump has without question demonstrated?
The preceding just deals with the tip of the iceberg of portents given by Trump's run for President. It's no secret that running for President, to say nothing of winning is one sure way to $5M - $10M; candidates have to fight off book publishers. When a winning candidate is a private company owner and operator, the potential for graft and chicanery is all but unlimited. Even if there were a thought that something untoward were to have taken place, how would investigators obtain credible evidence of it? I mean really, who's going to tell them the truth among a President, their wife, sons, daughters and other immediate family members in the case of a closely held business entity that's large enough to provide the kind of money we're talking about?
However we answer the questions above, whatever happens next, we are all but certain to see a whole new paradigm in politics and elections. Whether one likes Trump or not, he's singularly responsible for whatever becomes of our electoral process and players.
Now, to me that just doesn't sit well. It doesn't, not because it's Trump who did it, but because it shows it can very conceivably be done. This is the first time in modern electoral history when we've seen that a charismatic individual with no public policymaking experience who has enough money in fact can, in a manner of speaking, purchase the U.S. Presidency via one of the two major parties.
Ross Perot sort of gave it a shot some years back, but he did it as an Independent, not on the Dem or Rep ticket. Mr. Perot even did pretty well, gaining about 20% of the popular vote, but zero electoral votes. Thus his run didn't demonstrate convincingly that one could in essence buy the Presidency.
The sum of money needed also is clearly "not that much." So far, Trump is projected to spend about $100M or so of his own money. For someone who's worth billions, that's not much at all. It's even doable for folks worth $500M to $1B because at that wealth level, one's lifestyle doesn't change because one may after the fact be a couple hundred million dollars less wealthy.
So just what are the implications of what Trump has without question demonstrated?
- Are we about to have an era of wealthy entertainers -- because they have the charisma and built in name recognition -- as President, Senator, Congressperson?
- We've all seen members here write about the "oligarchs," or in the press they're called "elites," and the extent of control they already have over the political process, and that's when they are "buying" an election for someone else.
- What is to come when they instead, using the example Trump has given us, buy elected offices for themselves?
- Is there any hope after this for "regular" people really having any say in American politics and policymaking?
- I doubt we'll devolve into something akin to African nations with their patronage bribes for public office, but we might, although it may be different individuals, groups and entities who get paid.
- Would it be the media -- bloggers, television and radio networks, editorialists, reporters, execs, etc. -- who get paid?
- What stops the wealthy candidate from dropping the bulk of their ad buys on XYZ network in exchange for favorable coverage?
- What stops blog/editorial writers from also being on the dole?
- When it's a private individual funding their run, what makes them spend the money out of their campaign fund instead of just buying ad time and facilities, etc, out of their pocket, no official campaign involved?
- What stops one from mostly bypassing the official campaign if one has one?
- Would it be the media -- bloggers, television and radio networks, editorialists, reporters, execs, etc. -- who get paid?
- Just how far down the hierarchy will this go in years ahead? Congress? State legislatures? Dog catcher?
- What about a person basically using their campaign as a vehicle for creating a tax deduction out of their election bid? I already showed how that works now in a different post. (Nobody had much to say about it before, so I'm not going to link it here.
- What sorts of requirements must we implement to somehow ensure that even if it's only "oligarchs" running, we the people at least get accurate information about them so we can make well informed choices based on info that is "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" rather than the "spun" information we've been getting for the past "however many decades it's been?"
- Will we need honesty in political campaigning statutes?
- Will we need to mandate the nature and extent of coverage media outlets provide for candidates?
- Should media outlets be required to provide free and equal amounts coverage for all candidates in order to keep ?
The preceding just deals with the tip of the iceberg of portents given by Trump's run for President. It's no secret that running for President, to say nothing of winning is one sure way to $5M - $10M; candidates have to fight off book publishers. When a winning candidate is a private company owner and operator, the potential for graft and chicanery is all but unlimited. Even if there were a thought that something untoward were to have taken place, how would investigators obtain credible evidence of it? I mean really, who's going to tell them the truth among a President, their wife, sons, daughters and other immediate family members in the case of a closely held business entity that's large enough to provide the kind of money we're talking about?
However we answer the questions above, whatever happens next, we are all but certain to see a whole new paradigm in politics and elections. Whether one likes Trump or not, he's singularly responsible for whatever becomes of our electoral process and players.
