ARKANSAS and Kentucky held their primaries on Tuesday. While Barack Obama's feeble primary performance in states where he is unpopular is good for a snicker or a sigh, the real story of the night is the surprise blowout victory of Thomas Massie (pictured), a Ron Paul-style conservative, against the GOP establishment candidates in Kentucky's 4th congressional district. As the Republican candidate in a right-leaning district, Mr Massie is expected to win the forthcoming congressional election. What's unusual in this story is that Mr Massie, currently the "judge executive" (sort of like city manager) of Lewis County, took the nomination with the generous help of a super PAC bankrolled by a wealthy 21-year-old student from Texas. The Louisville Courier-Journal reports:
Massie came into the race largely unknown in the district's population center of Boone, Kenton and Campbell counties but was able to overcome his lack of name recognition by scoring a couple of big name endorsements and getting the backing of several tea party organizations.
He also got more than $500,000 worth of backing from a super PAC called Liberty for All, which was funded almost entirely by a 21-year-old Texas college student with an inheritance. The group ran ads supporting Massie and criticizing Webb-Edgington and Moore.
Marc Wilson, a supporter of Webb-Edgington, criticized the group after the ballots were counted.
“It's a shame that a Texas libertarian super PAC could come in and invade the Republican Party to buy a congressional seat,” he said.
Mr Wilson isn't the only one a bit nonplussed by the intervention of super PAC money in the election. "Wow", quips Ed Kilgore of Washington Monthly. "Wonder if the kid down in Texas turned in a term paper to his poli sci class entitled 'How I bought a congressional seat in Kentucky.'" Mr Kilgore's flippery evidently irks Radley Balko, a civil-liberties reporter for the Huffington Post, who takes a look at Mr Massie's and his opposition's views, and then writes:
So what happened last night, then, is that instead of an establishment, party machine GOP operative who supports the Homeland Security-industrial state, Kentucky got a waste-cutting opponent of the PATRIOT ACT and other war-on-terror government power who also wants to end pointless wars, repeal drug prohibition, and has a record of tackling corruption. Given that the GOP nominee will be the favorite in November, you'd think Massie's victory would be something a progressive like Kilgore could appreciate.
Kilgore is right on one point. Without the half million dollar infusion from the super PAC, it's doubtful Massie would have won. And that of course is precisely the point. Strict limits on campaign contributions only further entrench the two major parties.
As opponents of government censorship of campaign speech frequently emphasise, campaign-finance restrictions generally benefit incumbents who come into races with name recognition, large, well-established donor networks, and backing from a party. Large gifts, like the one Mr Massie in effect received from Liberty for All, make it possible that candidates without access to the works of the party machine can mount a serious challenge to incumbent or party-establishment candidates. Mr Massie's success last night looks rather less like a case of "buying" an election than a case of big money buying voters a real choice. Prior to the Citizens United decision, this couldn't have happened, and that would have been too bad.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
It still seems highly unsettling that it takes major donor support to give non-conventional candidates a chance. A democratic system ought to depend on candidates' stated positions and proposed policies rather on whether they have a lot of money behind them to generate name recognition. True, this takes some power away from the party establishment, but it's just replacing establishment-picked prospectives with donor-picked ones. Perhaps that's not a bad thing for the time being, but it has to raise some eyebrows eventually.
>>Large gifts, like the one Mr Massie in effect received from Liberty for All, make it possible that candidates without access to the works of the party machine can mount a serious challenge to incumbent or party-establishment candidates. Mr Massie's success last night looks rather less like a case of "buying" an election than a case of big money buying voters a real choice.<<
If no one can get elected without a large amount of money (whether from party or from PAC), voters do not have any "REAL" choice – under such conditions voters are somewhere between a rubber stamp and a figleaf of legitimacy covering the outcomes of jockeying between party bosses and rich donors. If incumbents are impossible to depose, the solution is not allowing unlimited, anonymous PAC funds, but the declawing of party machines that keep incumbents in office in contradiction to popular preference.
My overriding concern is transparency. I don't like the idea of IRS Code 501[c][4] non-profit status going to obviously partisan political groups, because donors don't have to be identified.
Donors do have to be identified.
501[c][3] donors have to be identified. 501[c][4] donors do not. Since 501[c][4] non-profits can engage in political activities so long as they're not its "primary activity", it's a distinction that can obviously be gamed unless the IRS is strict. It's worth a look.
You got it backwards. 501(c)(3)'s don't have to disclose and cannot engage in any electioneering. 501(c)(4)'s can engage in electioneering but must disclose donors who contribute over $10K.
"While super PACs have to report their contributors, a super PAC donor who wants to remain anonymous simply has to route their money through a non-profit group to ensure that the ultimate source of the money stays secret. For example, during the 2010 election cycle, the Environment Colorado Action Fund, a super PAC, received about 99 percent of its funding from Environment Colorado, a 501(c)(4) organization. The super PAC discloses that all its donations came from the (c)(4) groups, but the real donors to the super PAC remain secret. Donors just give to the (c)(4), remain anonymous, and know the money ends up being used by the Super PAC. Disclosure defeated."
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/disclose_2012_will_make_manda...
Here's one going after the Right. They all do it; it's a heartwarmingly bipartisan dodge.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11278/super-nonprofits-influencing-e...
You're right. Super PAC's have to disclose. 501(c)'s do not. 501(c)(4)'s can donate to super PAC's.
The money gets the message out. Voters still get to decide if they like the message as well as the messenger.
Spot on!
With the Internet, the message is incredibly easy and cheap to get out, provided it is actually an interesting message, as opposed to a message you have to force or cajole people into watching. You only need lots of money if you want to silence the message of the other side or to obscure or distort reality.
So no – it's not about the message. If it were, elections could be run in under seven figures per side.
I'm consistently impressed by these insurgent candidates. These aren't Sarah Palins. Thomas Massie is an MIT grad who started a successful tech company and built his own solar-powered home. In their praise of compromise for compromise's sake, Democrats are clamoring for the old school pro-defense War on Drugs culture warrior Republicans instead of these more independent libertarian Republicans. They'd prefer George W. Bush over Ron Paul.
Libertarians who put "Atlas Shrugged", etc. back on the bookshelf and pick up something more humanist (I recommend Vonnegut or Sagan), typically realize they're more aligned with democrats than republicans.
Socialists who put down People magazine and pick up The Economist typically realize they're more aligned with Republicans than Democrats, at least on economic issues.
Actually, even The Economist has begun labeling recent Republican behaviour as irresponsible, unfounded, and/or delusional.
Reagan and Bush Sr. were both far to the left of today's Republicans in Congress.
And Obama is far to the left of Clinton or Carter.
I know there's this whole trope about how he is "too moderate", but he did Obamacare, took over GM, did a huge stimulus, tons of QE, and fought a war for "RtP". I don't see him as the kind of person who would deregulate airlines or reform healthcare.
By the way Joe, I have the same antipathy to Rand you do. Being a libertarian is supposed to be partly about relying on people to help others voluntarily, not permission to be uncaring.
Oh, and Congressmen individually are always far to the left or right of the President. They are just parts of the legislative, whereas the President is the entire executive. The different varieties of crazies can balance each other out. Also, his crazy ideas are more likely to become policy, so he has to be a little more realistic.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both far to the right of today's Democrats in Congress. This comparison to politicians past is both overplayed and useless.
On any given bill, Republicans may be wrong but in economic philosophy the GOP is mostly right. Take the road of maximum efficiency. Free trade, lower broader flatter taxes, no tax on capital, less regulation, and decentralize. Basically, government intervention only to fix a market failure and by "market failure" I don't mean something's not as cheap as you want it to be or someone's making too much money.
Yeah, they're right about the economy. The problem is to keep America's interest you have to be obstreperously wrong about something. It's hard to compete with "the rich!". Democrats have the economy when it comes to that so... "the gays!"
I remember hearing one guy talking about the "market failure" of how businesses discriminate against people who don't have money. My oh my.
Y'know Geithner, Paulson and Sumners are children of Wall St, as is Bernake. It's silly to call it left wing when all the finance types are lapping it up. Paulson did a 180 with TARP whe he saw the Abyss AIG opened up.
Yeh, but Jimmy Carter was lame ducked because he was cutting down Comgressmen's sacred cows. The Republicans ate him alive. And Reagan made a deal with the Ayatolla. Bombs for the Pesidency.
Free trade: Absolutely, as long as it's reciprocal. (this is not true of China right now)
Flatter taxes make the rich richer, and the poor poorer, than they are now. This hurts the poor far more than it benefits the rich. I should know, I have been both.
There is no tax on capital now, but there is on income from capital. Lower capital gains taxes means higher taxes on the income people work for, rather than collect as rents.
Low taxation is lovely -- who likes taxes? But societies that play like a team, building infrastructure, educating children, and tiding over those in trouble, do far better than those who don't. Of course it must be spent *well*, which usually means setting up clear rules and handing actual decisions over to impartial institutions, rather than politicians.
"Market failure" adequately describes what environmental, labor, antitrust, educational, and financial regulation is meant to control, and very much describes the 2008 collapse, which was caused by deregulation. As an engineer, I know a thing or two about efficiency, and let me tell you that unregulated engines aren't very efficient. They tend to race and stall, race and stall, and occasionally blow up.
Saying the GOP only intervenes to fix market failure is farcical. What about agricultural subsidies, weapons systems chosen based on the riding the factory is in, and the kazillion tax loopholes?
Seriously, an idealized GOP is all very well, but that's not what is sitting in Congress right now. As for Romney... honestly, the only thing I know for sure is that he's in favor of becoming President, and he and his marketing team are determined to present the image required to do that.
When the left lost the intellectual war against free trade, they retreated to "fair trade." Nobody has a problem with fair trade if it means trading partners can't violate human rights. E.g., using slave labor. But people who use the term usually mean either that trading partners have to adopt some American labor standards like the minimum wage or that trade has to be balanced. That is not supporting free trade.
Flat taxes can be designed to be progressive as you like. No flat tax ever proposed in the US would raise taxes on the poor. In general, flat taxes lower taxes for the lower-middle class and very rich and raise them for the upper-middle class.
Instead of "no tax on capital," I should've said "no double taxation." I think that makes it clearer. Calling capital gains, "rent" is a new one. Is there a blog for bad economics that people get this stuff from? It's preferable to raise income or consumption taxes than to double tax capital gains.
Yes, we all agree that taxes are necessary. We differ on the purpose and effect of taxation. I want to tax to pay for a limited government. The left wants to tax because (1) the rich are too rich, and (2) taxing is free. The left operates in a world without deadweight losses. This is no straw man. How many times have you heard people say "No CEO is going to work less because he's taxed a little more"?
Let me add one more thing to the list of things Republicans get mostly right; Free markets are generally preferable to socialism. With the end of the Cold War, you'd think it'd be obvious but I'm always surprised by how popular socialism is, though nobody likes to admit it in the US. I've heard the argument that government-run health care is more efficient than private health care because the government has lower administrative costs and can take advantage of economies of scale. It makes sense when you hear it. Without the right's healthy paranoia about socialism, you might never realize that it's actually socialism and would probably fail for the same reason socialism usually fails elsewhere.
This brings us to the question of why Democrats tend to so wrong on economic issues. Financial illiteracy. To be sure there are plenty of illiterate Republicans but they're led by people who are literate. And there are literate Democrats but they tend to support Republican economic policies, at least in private.
I'm not against all regulations but which deregulation caused the 2008 collapse?
The market failure in that case was that the risk of mortgage default wasn't properly assessed. That's not something government can fix. Just because something goes wrong isn't a sufficient reason to regulate it.
How can a tax be flat and progressive? I missed that.
I don't know any person on the left who thinks (1) or (2), which are clearly silly. However there are many who believe that public spending (say, on transit) is often better than the spending of the wealthy (say, on yachts).
The weak correlation between CEO pay, effort, and results is well established. Unless you really think that CEOs today are 60% better than the were a decade ago?
As for health care costs, the reason that single-payer systems are cheaper (Canada : 9% of GDP, USA : 15% of GDP) is just market buying power. Same as Costco or Wal-mart. Note that most health-care in Canada is privately *delivered*, it's the payment that's mostly public.
As for "Republican" economic policies... do you mean the ones where we borrow to cut taxes on the rich, deregulate the banks, apply stimulus in good times, subsidize agriculture and oil, ban collective bargaining, get into big wars, and drive the country to the brink of default? I don't know many Democrats who support those.
If you mean "a free market, regulated as lightly as is consistent with long term economic, social, and environmental sustainability" then of course.
I think a lot of Republicans have failed to notice, but the party left them behind and is taking them for granted. It's time for sensible Republicans to either get sensible, serious-minded people through the primaries, or switch sides.
Well, actually Canada *did* avoid the collapse. The highly regulated Canadian banks sailed through it.
The three forms of de/non regulation at fault were:
- Allowing the big merchant/consumer banks to get highly exposed to investment banking. This meant that investment-bank failures resulted in a freeze-up that impacted the entire 'real' economy, not just a bunch of investment funds.
- Relaxing capital reserve restrictions, so that the banks had no cushion when they sustained large losses.
- Failing to bring in transparency rules on CDOs, CDSs, and other derivatives. This caused the system to freeze up because nobody knew who was secretly insolvent.
The problem is that banks aren't just businesses; they're infrastructure. We build safety margins into our bridges, ports, and power grids for a reason.
Lower capital gains taxes means higher taxes on the income people work for, rather than collect as rents.
That is not rents.
I don't know what you mean by deregulate banks. If you mean the reforms at the end of Clinton's term, that was Clinton, and they had become completely outdated by then anyway.
There are plenty of farm state Republicans, but the party pushed for lower farm subsidies in the 90s, and got some, and right now in the Ryan plan. Bush vetoed the farm bill, unsuccessfully as much of the the things he did. If you look at it, most of the "oil subsidies" are just standard corporate deductions like depreciation of capital. I do think we don't get good enough payment for use of public lands, but whatever.
I don't know many Democrats who support those.
Uh, what are you talking about. FDR brought all these insane agricultural subsidies in. Oh, and remember Vietnam and Korea. And "drive the country to the brink of default", are you kidding me, how about what the current democratic President is doing right now.
The big difference is in Canada you're liable for your mortgage whether or not you walk away. US banks just have you put up your house. It's easier to default.
A flat tax is progressive because there's an implicit 0% rate.
There are plenty of leftists who want to tax for the purpose of reducing income inequality and there are even more who aren't aware of deadweight loss. They believe there's NO correlation between taxes and work. When you then point out that a 99% tax would obviously disincentivize work, they agree then pick a number out of a hat that they think is reasonable. E.g., "70%. Below 70% there's no effect." The fact is that there's always an effect. Even at 10%. This isn't an argument for no taxes but it's making the point that taxes aren't free. They hit economic growth. Leftists certainly do not accept that, at least not at current taxation levels.
You just made the socialist health care argument that I described. Wouldn't goods be even cheaper if Costco and Wal-Mart were nationalized and merged?
Here's another difference between the economically illiterate left and those more aligned with The Economist; the latter recognizes the difference between correlation and causation. Canadians consume less elective and catastrophic care. Rich Canadians come to the US for heart transplants and Lasik. Americans also spend a larger percentage of GDP on iPhones than probably any other country in the world. Does that somehow mean the US is less efficient in iPhone provisioning and therefore should nationalize it?
Canada avoided the financial collapse by not having a financial boom. Sure, you can prevent a financial crisis by not having a financial system, or having a relatively small one. You'd also prevent economic growth. It's not free!
Which deregulation specifically caused the financial crisis? Did you just mean non-regulation? In that case, non-regulation is the cause of all bad things everywhere always. Literally every bad event can be prevented in retrospect by a regulation. That alone does not justify regulation. You'd have to show that it's desirable even when there is no catastrophe. Regulation isn't free!
Republicans don't always get everything right but on the economic issues you mention with the exception of defense spending, a Republican is more likely than a Democrat to get it right.
"there is no tax on capital now, but there is income from capital. lower capital gains means higher taxes on the income people work for, rather than collect as rents."
It's the expected income from rents that motivates people to save/invest rather than consume. It's investors who create jobs and pay wages. Consumers don't create the factories and distribution chains that produce the goods they buy. Workers (as a subset of consumers) don't either. Capital has an indispensable role; while that does not subordinate every other element of the economy to capital, it does mean that capital needs to be respected and not mistreated.
Preferential rates on capital gains (though they could be progressive rather than flat as currently) are not a bad idea to encourage investment over consumption. I'd put interest income in the same category while we're at it, to eliminate the false taxation differential between shareholders and bondholders. Likewise, interest paid to lenders and dividends paid to shareholders ought also be treated the same.
Fighting over marginal rates, and fighting over the broader question of whether wages and passive income should be taxed equally is a huge distraction from a more important and collectively less-controversial issue: the massive proliferation of tax expenditures/loopholes that have narrow benefits and broad costs to the economy.
"flatter taxes make the rich richer and the poor poorer"
Gotta disagree. If flatter taxes result in the rich keeping more of their income, that's not the same as tilting the field in their favor. I'm more inclined to think that many of the rich in this country are getting rich by capturing the outflows from our government, or by causing the enactment of government policies that tilt the field in their favor.
The poor will not get rich from government. The poor will get rich by offering their services for value to those who have money, and then saving/investing part of their current income so as to increase future income. Work-income-savings leads to less work, more income and more savings. This is the virtuous cycle that a free society/market affords to the willing. The state is the root of the fiercest headwinds to personal economic advancement. It raises the cost of living, and restricts the entry of new competitiors into regulated markets. It forecloses those with low skills from taking below-minimum wages so that they might gain on the job training (leaving them unemployed and dependent). It manipulates the value of money--the foundation of free markets--in ways that are predictable and profitable for the elite, but pernicious and wealth-stripping to the majority. It takes from the many and gives to the connected few. It's an agent for racism, most notably in the criminal justice context. And, significantly, it wastes a lot of what it touches on inefficient bureaucracy and counterproductive meddling abroad.
It's tough to sell the uncertain but proven virtues of the free market to people looking for a quick fix to a discrete problem. But over time these quick fixes undermine everything we hold dear.
Preferential rates on capital gains (though they could be progressive rather than flat as currently) are not a bad idea to encourage investment over consumption.
Romney wants to do that. He wants to have the capital gains tax only take effect over 200k, which is a good idea in my book.
Well, tax revenue is basically all from the rich. Partly this is because of income inequality. If they're getting their riches from the government then it's just musical chairs.
-
Poor people go to prison, rich people pay for prison. If imprisoning someone for twenty years for possession of LSD at 30k a year is some sorta con by the rich, it's an extraordinarily bad one. That's a lot of money to pay for a few license plates. I think our criminal justice system is a product of stupidity rather than nefariousness.
Try to prove that and you'll find it quite difficult.
So what happened last night, then, is that instead of an establishment, party machine GOP operative who supports the Homeland Security-industrial state, Kentucky got a waste-cutting opponent of the PATRIOT ACT and other war-on-terror government power who also wants to end pointless wars, repeal drug prohibition, and has a record of tackling corruption.
Wow, if you bought the election, thank you. If you were one year younger, I'd definitely buy beer for you dude.
Best democracy money can buy.
Okay, we need to go over something: Super PACs did NOT become legal because of Citizens United. If I recall, it is Buckley v. Valeo, which ruled that money is in effect speech, that allowed individuals to spend as much money as they want promoting whatever viewpoint that the want.
Using Citizens United as the short hand for all speech-money in politics issues ever is shortsighted and leads to the case being demonized for things it didn't do (it also didn't establish the doctrine of corporate personhood either, although you wouldn't know if from listening to some of the opponents).
The person who has the seat - Geoff Davis - chose not to run for re-election.
What matters first, is what Mr. Davis' "fiscal cliff" votes will be when the time comes.
NPWFTL
Regards
Gladiatorial sponsorship in ancient Rome?
The analogy only goes so far-- to complete it, we'd have to ensure congressmen engaged in mortal combat (not the video game). Doing so, of course, would be a benefit in terms of a much decreased incumbency rate. What we need to do is buy 3/4ths of all the seats, then implement.
And you could get Congress you grant you worldwide TV rights during their incumbency. At 500k USD a seat, the ROI would be incredible.
Stick it up on Kickstarter, you could get very rich...
to complete it, we'd have to ensure congressmen engaged in mortal combat (not the video game)
-
Massie Wins! Flawless Victory! Democracy!
http://mortalkombatfatalities.net/mortal-kombat-fatality-montage-ps3-xbo...
The Roman Empire ultimately fell...
What surprises me is how little money is really involved. At this price, all of Congress could be bought for less than four hundred million. I think that is about as much as one nuclear submarine.
It is always tempting to blame money for subverting democracy, but is that *really* the case? If so, where is the Pepsi Party?
Massie sounds like just the kind of republican I could vote for. Could this simply be democracy in action?
A very fascinating development. Oh sure, I could go on about how the modern convservative movement keeps spawning monsters in the same mode as Dr. Frankenstein (pronounced Fraun-ken-steen?), but we've covered that ground and had our moment of gallows humor for democracy.
There's a new dynamic here. What this latest episode suggests is that buying elections is silly -- what you really want to buy are the primaries, and you may do so on the cheap, letting the party then finance the general election. Another odd facet here is that you can buy the primary in a congressional district far removed from you geographically, in support of items for a national agenda. What it suggests is that PACs or party war chests laundered via PACs could be used in an unlikely scenario, i.e., buying primaries in their opponent's safe districts with two possible outcomes: purchasing the district for someone so batsh*t crazy they can't get votes (note: this will not work in the South) or someone who might compromise with their benefactors once sworn in.
(i believe that's EEEE-gore-
nope. eyyye-gore. walk like this...)
Are you implying there is no such thing at TOO batsh*t crazy in the South?
I'm sorry if my words merely implied it-- I failed to make it forcefully clear that it is meant as an axiom, not a casual rule-of-thumb.
"(note: this will not work in the South)"
Why, because in the South, everyone is batsh*t crazy?
Maybe not everyone, but clearly 50% + 1 on a typical election day.
Aw, it's just Yankees don't have any fire in 'em.
-
I don't know. Between California and Virginia, it's not the Virginians who don't seem to be operating in the real world. I think governor moonbeam puts acid in the water. There's got to be some explanation.
Hey, that Gov. Moonbeam is axing billions from the budget on a near-daily basis it seems, and fighting his own party over quite a lot of it. I believe last I saw our current budget is something along the lines of what it was several years ago...not entirely bad.
How is Thomas Massie a monster?
The jury is out on whether Massie is a monter-- we have yet to see him during a full moon. Purchasing primaries as a mechanism for election is what falls on the monster side of things; while you may not go that far, perhaps we'd compromise with calling it an unintended and unforeseen consequence.
Really! no he isn't, that's walk not talk. The budget is another travesty that fudged and then came up short, again. Bunk is a way of life in Sacramento.
Indeed - what would make it possible for both the incumbent, 'party machine' candidate and the insurgent outsider to have an equal hearing in every election would be serious campaign finance reform, limited amounts of public funding and guaranteed free air time on local television and radio.
I wonder what will happen to Mr. Massie when his guardian angel runs out of money/disagrees with him on some of his votes in Congress.
"I wonder what will happen to Mr. Massie when his guardian angel runs out of money/disagrees with him on some of his votes in Congress."
Well, if he's an incumbent, then he has typically over a 90% chance of not much more happening to him except 2 more years of public service as a congressman.
Once he is a member of congress he doesn't need his 21-year-old sugar daddy anymore. Lobbyists and other special interest agents will be trampling over each other to convert a freshman rep to their "cause".
The honest politician is the one that once bought, stays bought.
His sugar daddy will eventually graduate college, remove the Ron Paul Revolution stickers from his book bag, get a job at Bain, and bankroll more establishment Republicans.
Ya, while the "motives" of the Republican party establishment are fairly well established (as equally for the Dems), it's hard to say what exactly you're voting for when the money backing a candidate is so opaque.
(Yes, a single college student from Texas counts fairly well as "opaque")
You seem to assume arguendo that once in office, Massie will need to retain loyalty to his former benefactor.
However, once in office, he will have the name recognition, large, well-established donor networks, and backing from a party that his former opponents enjoyed. His concern then would be not alienating his voters so that an even larger Super PAC, or his former supporter, does not support a primary challenger in 2014.
All the money in the world will not make a difference if you can win 50.1% of the vote.
I disagree-- it's easier to poll a single college student to get his opinion than all the constituents in a congressional district. Makes it easer for the congressman too-- he only has to call one person to get guidance, rather than consult with a staff of pollsters for his district. You also know who voted for him in the most meaningful way, i.e., with money-speech. Very transparent, I'd say.
If you'll excuse me, I'm off to demand a raise from my boss-- I want an extra 2 paragraphs per pay period.
Wow, has something changed at the Economist? I would have expected it would, per its recent history, either ignore the story or twist it somehow to malign the Paulian liberty movement (since the Economist has plainly HATED Ron Paul to date.) This article/blog did not apply the standard knee-jerk responses. The writer took some effort to attain a balanced perspective and made a reasonable conclusion. Perhaps there is hope for my continued subscription after all.
TE probably has little respect for Ron Paul because of his Gold Standard ideas, which run counter to any sort of evidence-based economics.
I honestly like the guy, but that's a monstrously big error to make.
Kentucky got a waste-cutting opponent of the PATRIOT ACT and other war-on-terror government power who also wants to end pointless wars, repeal drug prohibition, and has a record of tackling corruption.
We need more representatives like this one if it is true.
The big innovation (I read I forget where, but I will happily plagiarize...)of american government is not that we got rid of corruption but that we made our corruption transparent. PAC's could be made more transparent as well. How to decrease the amount of money involved in campaigns is a much more difficult proposition. Conservatives point out that if there were less at stake at election time, in terms of government hand outs, less people would be interested in injecting money into politics. I don't see that happening any time soon.
"Conservatives point out that if there were less at stake at election time, in terms of government hand outs, less people would be interested in injecting money into politics."
If conservatives actually believe this, as opposed to just saying they believe this, then they believe in some absolute hogwash. Most people get into politics because of a sincere belief Entity X can be better governed. Some may have more nefarious reasons. But if the theory you state were true, nobody would be interested in municipal politics in small towns and cities, where the pot can sometimes be truly tiny. I observe that this is not the case.
Thought a bit more, I'd be more excited if the 21-year old had donated that money to a third party candidate who won the general election.
Hmmm, although I probably wouldn't have been voting in that primary, I'm conflicted about this. I do abhor the two-party system and its entrenched power structure, but in general have thought Citizens was a horrible decision....I don't like this ambiguity I'm feeling over this now....
I know how you feel. The conservatives make a good argument that speech=money. But the flip side is that money distorts the goal of having our elected official reflect the will of the people.
And a third side (might odd coin, isn't it?) is the barrier-to-entry for US national-level politics is about a half-million dollars. Tis good an outsider could beat a standard vanilla candidate from an established party. Tis bad that the man needed a SuperPac to bankroll an election.
"Big money buying voters a real choice" - all the democracy money can buy?
You have some weird set of morals, Will. The biggest beneficiary of unregulated money in campaigning is the media. The more money, the bigger the pie for the media, but all it's really doing is bidding up the price of the same fixed amount of attention. The pie isn't really larger for anyone else; it's a zero sum game.
It's the opposite, actually. One of the reasons the media *hated* Citizens United is that it put them back in its place. Before, they had special privileges for being media organizations and could spend their money -- their airtime -- to support the candidates or ideas that they thought important. Now, they have to compete with all the extra money coming in, which means that they can't control the debate as they used to.
If Mr. Massie wins the general but over the next 2 years fails to "bring home the bacon," that's fine.
His district's loss is someone else's gain.
(Maybe the PAC-backers?)
NPWFTL
Regards
Well, if it zero-sum, then we should assume the best outcome for Massie would be to grant any lost benefits from his district to the congressman from his guardian angel's district.