What's Wrong With Buying Votes?

[PaDUer]

December 31, 2003

What's Wrong With Buying Votes?
by John Samples

John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Democracy at the Cato Institute.

Washington is once again buzzing with charges of bribery. Rep. Nick Smith, (R-Mich.), asserted recently that unnamed individuals offered $100,000 for his son's congressional campaign if the elderly Smith would vote for the Medicare bill backed by President Bush. Smith is retiring, and his son is seeking his seat. Smith now says he was offered "substantial and aggressive campaign support" for his son and not money per se. Nonetheless, some congressional Democrats have called for an investigation of Smith's charges by the House ethics committee. If that investigation starts, where will it end? Big government itself is based on bribery.

If Smith is telling the truth, someone was trying to persuade him to vote to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. In exchange for his vote, they offered money or "substantial and aggressive campaign support." That putative attempt to buy Smith's vote was part of a larger, much more expensive vote-buying scheme.

-snip-

-For some time now, the Supreme Court has refused to enforce explicit constitutional limits on Congressional spending. As a result we have come to live in a society dominated by a government that gives to Peter by taking from Paul. Of course, the politicians that give to Peter expect his vote in return, a fact we like to ignore. Big Government is based on legalized bribery.

The House ethics committee should not limit its bribery inquiry to Rep. Smith's allegations. Every member of Congress buys votes every year, and many voters sell to the highest bidder. It will remain so until we restore the limits on congressional spending in our Constitution. Until then, the buying and selling of votes will remain the engine of American politics.

Entire article--
http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-31-03.html

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. So true

Personally, I prefer Public finanancing over the type of fundraising we have now.

[SmokingLoon]

3. Of course a Green party guy would want public financing

b/c the greens can't get financing otherwise. I hate public financing, because then any yahoo could come get some money by declaring himself a candidate.

[Qutzupalotl]

5. It would be worth it

to have candidates with nobody to pay back but the people.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Yep

I agree.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. And yet, we have a well-funded yahoo at the helm now

See the trouble? As long as money can buy elections, we're screwed. The GOP is wealthier than the rest of us.

So I submit that FEWER yahoos would be elected under public financing, because it puts everyone on a level playing field. Ergo, you are elected according to your value to the office you are running for, not the value of your purse.

And for the record, I'm not a guy sweetheart.

[baggypants]

2. So sad.........but, oh so true

[bryant69]

4. Yeah, but examine the underlying assumption

The only reason the poor vote for Democrats is that we bribe them with social programs. Is that something people on here are comfortable acknowledging?

Personally I don't buy it--first of all buying the poor vote is a losing strategy (since as a class they don't vote as much), secondly social programs benefit all Americans, not just the poor.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[randr]

8. Given the openness of political contributions

for political favor, I see no reason why coalitions of people could not sell their votes. Organize a bloc and offer the votes to the highest bidder. Seems like it would fit right in with the current situation. Now I am beginning to wonder if that is what the freepers are already doing.