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?
- 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?
- 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 ?
Obviously, I am not suggesting that one cannot use one's own money to finance a political campaign. That just doesn't fit with the American way. By the same token, neither does "buying" an election or evolving to political model where only the mega, mega rich get elected to high office.
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.
If I understand the OP correctly, it ignores one salient point. If the person running for office does not have ideas and opinions and plans that the majority of Americans agree with, that person will not become president. As Perot exemplified, money isn't all. You've got to have a winning message. So no, I don't believe any Joe Schmoe can buy an election.
Yes, I get what you're saying. That's why in several places I was careful to write things like: "in effect" or "to a material albeit not complete extent" or "n a manner of speaking." It's also why I wrote the bit about "charismatic."
I realize that it's not as simple as just writing a check and showing up on the Capitol steps in January. I tried to present, in the bulleted list of questions, a representation (not a 100% complete listing) of many of the major factors that are in play. One of them is that the person who would aim to "buy" an elective office still must appeal to the voters, but as implied in the combination of ideas found in the first and last "major" bullet questions, it's quite possible for charismatic candidates to mislead voters no matter what is objectively the truth. The candidate's charisma is part of what makes that possible, revulsion toward others is another enabling factor.
Well,
if you're going to throw in misleading the voters, that complicates the thing beyond just "buying" the election. Although
I suppose all pols do that to some extent, too. My opinion is still that the candidate needs a valid bill of goods to sell the American public, not just unlimited funds. Since
you don't want the discussion to stray into any of the current candidates, I don't have much else to say on the topic.
Red:
Of course, one cannot "buy" an election the way one buys a building. Yes, one must still get voters to vote one into the office. A central theme, problem really, that we've seen played out this election cycle -- more so than in any prior one, IMO -- is that given enough money, a candidate who aims to misrepresent facts/substance can, by purchasing the "right" mix of messaging and message delivery can do just that
and it works when they do, that is to say a large-enough-to-win-the-election quantity of people will accept as true misrepresentations that are convincingly-enough presented.
I think folks on both sides of the current choice between Trump and Mrs. Clinton will agree with that. Reps see Mrs. Clinton has having misrepresented things. Dems see Trump has having done so. So, what differences derive from the fact that a charismatic candidate can and does self-fund their campaign?
Let's say that you are a billionaire and you declare your candidacy for office. You want to see the country/government implement Policies A, B and C. You've never held public office of any sort. Now no matter how good or bad hindsight will some 50 years from now show your policies to be, right now as we all are deciding between you and your opponent(s), we voters can only decide based on what we have learned (formal + informal + experiential) in our lives. The more information we have, the better we voters are able to tell whether your policies, claims, etc. are good ones, for whom they are good and for whom they are not, and so on.
So far that's really no different than what we Americans have experienced for hundreds of years, so let's keep going. Because you are largely (or completely if you want) self-funding, have no constituency to whom you are beholden for the money you use to fund your pursuit of the office you seek. There's absolutely nobody to "pull the plug" on the money flow if you "get out of hand." Given that we have already established that by using the "right" messaging techniques, you can convince "a lot" of voters that your policies and whatever else about you that you care to share are "good for them," and there's nothing and nobody, other than your own code of conduct, that can reign you back in. You just keep going because you have mounted a populist campaign and don't care about the thousand folks whom most of the "grassroots voters" have never heard of, or don't like anyway if they have. In fact, it works to your populist appeal's benefit to have actual experts go against you. As long as you can keep paying for the messages that mislead folks about the details of A, B and C, voters believe those policies are good for them.
Now contrast that with your opponent, call him Joey, who depends on the contributions of others to fund his election and who has Policies P, Q and R. Now the "goodness" of Joey's policies is, like yours, only truly knowable well into the future, but When Joey gets "out of hand," some donors stop contributing even if all of them do not. Joey loses some, most or all of his ability to communicate his messages beyond what is covered as a course of routine news coverage. He's to some extent squelched. If/when Joey "flies right" again, the money flow picks back up. Joey's donors act effectively to keep Joey from getting too extreme, whereas you have no similar "governor."
In a way, the donors, especially big money ones, are part of the system of checks and balances. For instances, if I'm considering donating $500K to Joey's cause, I'm surely going to figure out what the details are of Joey's P, Q and R policies are and how they will impact me, the nation, etc. I may not do it personally, but it will get done and it will get done by someone who's truly an expert on the things about which I want information. Who's doing that research re: your A, B, and C policies? It's not the news stations, and even if they do it, they won't tell everyone all the details. It's not the voters individually; they have babies to burp, jobs to do, and so on. It's certainly not you for you are only going to present your side of the story. But when Joey's big money backers deny their continued support, that says, even absent the details, that something's amiss with your proposals, even though it may not be shared or known what is "off" and whom whatever it is will worst affect.
So when you get a super rich candidate, it really doesn't matter what one says or who can "see through it" or not. As long as one can make voters think one is "good," by spending money like there's no tomorrow (something Trump hasn't exactly done, but he could have), there's literally nothing standing in one's way from becoming President. The "lipstick" can effectively hide the fact that one is a pig.
To the extent one achieves that outcome, one has purchased an election, and upon taking office, to whom does one owe any allegiance? Millions of people who have no way to effectively organize against you. (You know that as well as I. How often do Congressmen and Senators respond to "little" voter demands instead of "big money" demands?) Plus, once you're in office, we're stuck with you for at least four years. Now if less wealthy folks used the same techniquest to "buy" their House and Senate seats, then what? What if you, Miss Billionairess, "bought" or helped "buy" theirs too?
Blue:
I don't have a problem with using the current candidate's names. Certainly the phenomenon I'm describing has come to mind because of my observations about current and past candidates' campaigns. The personal styles of the current candidates are surely not unique within human nature, so others like them may well come along.
