Today we rant and rave about “the influence of money” in politics. But we ignore the cause. Who is going to spend millions of dollars to “buy” an office if that office can’t return the “investment” in ways such as regulating your competitor, getting government grants, contracts, or taking someone else’s house, property, or the product of their efforts?
Bingo. I’ve said this a couple of times before, not to Nick Cassella but to other lefties, that if you want to decrease the influence of corporations and special interests in elections, the best way to do that is to invoke the 10th Amendment and become Switzerland, where the federal government has little to do other than to insure constitutional protections for all people and worry about national defense.
How’s that work? Well, it’s estimated that as much as 80% of all corporate lobbying money is spent for preferential tax treatment. If federal taxes are low and it’s STATE taxes which are much higher (in Switzerland, the government doesn’t run the universal care system, for example; their Feds just say “Cantons (states), everyone in your canton must have health insurance that meets THESE minimum standards. Now go figure out how you want to do that.”, then there’s no federal government worth lobbying. The money shifts to lobbying 50 individual states, where it has lesser influence because it’s been divided-and-conquered.
That type of government doesn’t scream out for people to try to control it. Which meant that people were not clamoring to control it.
And of course, the reason th eUS left rejects the idea of the weak-federal model is not because it doesn’t work, but because of their own control-freakiness. They simply cannot envision a just nation which doesn’t have a coercive federal government saying to its citizens “Under pain of fine or incarceration, play nice with each other”. Which is the same “reasoning” that turned normal humans like Roger Nash Baldwin, Angela Davis, and Lee Harvey Oswald into communists willing to accept murder to achieve social justice goals.
Even today I’d put good money on a bet that if you asked Americans if they’d care if they could vote or not if the government didn’t tax them (corporate or income) at all, didn’t spend money on “special projects” based on congressional and senate districts, didn’t have the authority to tell you who you could or could not marry, who you had to bake for, whether you could get baked or not, what bathroom you had to use, what jobs you could take, what jokes you could make, what to eat, what must and shall not be taught in school, that it couldn’t go invading other countries unless directly attacked, and the rest of the myriad of other ways the government currently exerts control and influence over their lives, and that this would also virtually eliminate the big election seasons as nobody saw a financial benefit to control people who had no authority to grant them favors, a shockingly high, and bi-partisan, number would agree to it. Maybe even a majority. It might even include you.
Well, many people who don’t vote give the “who cares, both parties are the same as far as I’m concerned” as the justification. If you’re not in the 1%, your life isn’t going to change if the 1% is taxed at 35% or 39.6%.
And if you aren’t in that group, ask yourself why not. If the federal government was there only to provide defense against invasion and to prevent the States, not the people in the states, from enacting laws overly favoring themselves over other states what exactly are you wanting to control? There is but one answer: the behavior of other people.
You should really shine up this article (it doesn’t need much shining — just add a title and an opening paragraph — and publish as a standalone story.