Joel Stein April 10, 2014
The Supreme
Court just made being an ultra-wealthy American a lot more annoying
I don’t know
if the Supreme Court’s decision to allow people to donate to as many candidates
as they want will cause trouble for our democracy. But I do know it will cause
a lot of trouble for rich people. There are a lot of misconceptions about the
extremely wealthy. Most have pools that are completely finite. Many are so
secure in their first marriages that they include their spouse’s name on their
museum wing. Also: They don’t call up candidates to offer them money.
Candidates call them. Now that the $48,600 limit on donations to federal
candidates per election cycle has been wiped away by McCutcheon v. Federal
Election Commission, everyone running for office will be bothering them. And
now they have no excuse. The only reason Shaun McCutcheon was willing to incur
the wrath of all the other rich people in the country is that he lives in
Alabama and therefore will never meet any of them.
I asked
Jeffrey Katzenberg, who gave more than $3 million to help elect Obama in 2012,
if he was worried about getting hundreds of calls from Democrats running for
Congress this year. “I just changed my email and phone numbers and am now
wearing a hoodie,” he responded. “The Founding Fathers must be sick of watching
our democracy disintegrating as elections are put up for sale to unlimited
contributors.” And if our nation’s founders are not sick about this, there’s a
good chance the court will soon allow Katzenberg to retroactively donate to
their campaigns and convince them to feel that way.
Damon Lindelof,
the co-creator of Lost, had already come up with a strategy to deal with the
court’s decision: “I have had no choice but to change my party affiliation
every time someone calls and asks for money. It’s tiring but worth it,” he
explained. Though getting a call asking for money is actually a welcome relief
for Lindelof, since it means someone wants to talk about something other than
the last episode of Lost.
It turns out
that, like Lindelof, most rich people don’t max out: in fact, only about 600
do. This might be the Supreme Court decision that affects the fewest people
since U.S. v. People With Full-Time Jobs Who Know the Details of Malaysia
Flight 370. When I contacted billionaire Mark Cuban, he wasn’t even aware of
the details of McCutcheon. “But,” he said, “I can tell you what I tell all
politicians asking me for money: No.” Which is the exact opposite of what he
tells every journalist asking for a quote.
Those who did
give the limit are already so entrenched in the donor system that a little more
is not going to affect their lives. Phil Rosenthal, the creator of Everybody
Loves Raymond, who came within an accounting error of maxing out to Democratic
candidates in 2012, said, “My problems are minor compared to some members of the
Supreme Court, who seem to be suffering from a mental deficiency.” Ken Kies,
who runs a tax-lobbying firm and has–along with his wife–maxed out giving to
Republicans, isn’t worried either. “It’s already so irritating. I get 50 emails
a day, so I can’t imagine that’s going to increase,” he said. The really big
donors, he explained, are already giving as much as they want through super
PACs. The really really big donors just run for office themselves.
The biggest
change, he said, is that people in D.C. will claim to give more. “There are a
lot of people throwing cocktail parties, saying they have given the max, but
they apparently don’t understand there are basic websites you can look at to
check,” he said. It’s the equivalent of celebrities in L.A. bragging about how
much plastic surgery they haven’t had.
Peter
Buttenwieser, a philanthropist and Lehman Brothers heir who reached the limit
for giving last year, also isn’t worried about getting more calls from
candidates. “I basically know all these people, and they know me,” he said.
“It’s not like a strange nonprofit calling in the evening.” Still, he hates the
decision because raising money wastes so much of candidates’ time. “I’ve spent
an entire life working with public schools in the inner city. I’d much prefer
to be influential there than someone who is a major player in the Democratic
Party. It’s not a great calling,” he said.
When America
doesn’t provide great callings to the rich, we are all failing. Soon, there
will be children who don’t even care about making as much money as they can,
since they know so much of it will go to negative campaign ads they’ll have to
watch before their 48-second YouTube videos about unusual cats. What the
authors of the Constitution didn’t realize is that when we have too much
freedom, we express it in really lame ways. I hope Katzenberg can talk them out
of that
“The Founding Fathers must be sick of watching our democracy disintegrating as elections are put up for sale to unlimited contributors.”
ReplyDeleteSo why are the republicans so in love with this idea.
As late as the early 1900's is wasn't fashionable for a presidential candidate to even go out on the stump. It was all done by surrogates. During the years that the founding fathers were trading places being President it wasn't even fashionable to even admit you were in fact running for the office.
Certainly the founders would not be happy that our elections are now being sold to the highest bidders.
"What the authors of the Constitution didn’t realize is that when we have too much freedom, we express it in really lame ways."
Ric
ReplyDeleteInteresting viewpoint but of course the level of debate was of a higher standard and the acrimony between competing candidates was no less malevolent.
I have read the Lincoln Douglas debates several times, with each reading I get a better understanding of the view of the protagonists and a greater appreciation of the strength of their beliefs.
I read again the struggles of Burr and his hatred of Hamilton; both were in parts correct in holding the views they did. I believe the personal animosity was born out of Hamilton’s inability to ever become President (constitutional restraints) and Burrs inability to win over the support of Hamilton and the Federalists. The New York Governorship and the duel was simply the end play in a much longer game.
There is much in the Federalist Papers I do not understand; the prose however from the authors is exemplary.
Fascinating as those debates are to read about Kingston, the reality remains that they occurred in such a starkly different contrast to the world we live in today. Lincoln and Douglas debated in front of live people who had an access to them that cannot remotely be achieved today. Our debates are "moderated" which is just another word for scripted and the candidates are allowed to happily sidestep away from any meaningful question that is presented to them.
DeleteLooking from the inside of this country outward King, I see a population that simply does not give a care about the eloquence of thought and speech that captivates you when studying the history of our founding fathers. The tea party types never miss a chance to hype the founding fathers and Reagan in stump speeches or in Washington, but on the campaign trail, the ads they run, funded by benefactors they are beholden to, are nothing but slime, contempt and character assassination.
In simple terms King, what wins elections in this country are negative ads that are beat into our consciousness. The exemplary prose you enjoy reading is way about the attention span of voters in this country who have no ability to genuinely question themselves let alone the candidates they blindly follow.
To be clear about one thing, the ads that democrats run are not any better. I believe that money, like the internet, allows for candidates and participants in our political process to engage in bitter, hateful warfare without ever having to really consider what life is like for anyone else.
DeleteMax, ads do not have to be 100% truthful, only partially factual.
DeleteThe caveat: They have to state that the ad has been paid for either by the political party or candidate concerned or by a particular organisation or company.