Campaign finance reform has been a continual hotbed issue. Where most Americans aren't even aware of the attempts to reform the system through the use of primaries, many more have taken positions on the use of money in elections.
It can be broadly said that both attempts are efforts to reduce the power of narrow groups: wealthy organizations and party bosses, namely. Unfortunately I think these efforts are doomed to fail.
People in high political offices, and the rich, as well as organizations with access to large amounts of cash have a political asset that goes beyond payola and superdelegates in their pocket: they have notability.
Americans, and I would say humans in general, are creatures of trend. One theory says that basically one in twenty people are the ones that decide what will be 'cool' for the rest of society. The people that are currently at the top of the political process tend to be these central trendmakers for the rest of us.
In addition, beyond name recognition some of the largest influences on people are things that are free: the influence of these central opinion-shapers, news media coverage, endorsements. By having access to the control of these functions the people that are already in power have access to substantial reserves that don't tie in to a bank account of official position.
Add to that the fact that people are able to circumvent campaign funding laws, and the hybrid system used by parties in their conventions and I'm not sure the material effect is entirely different. The public may have slightly more control but when the public is also influenced by these factors the net outcome may be identical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment