“Politics has
become so expensive that it takes a lot of money just to lose.” Will Rogers
said that. He died in 1935. He could have had no idea how high a price
politicians would be willing to pay for votes.
“Power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” An English historian, Lord
John Acton said so. He died in 1902, long before he had any notion about how
absolutely big money would corrupt politics.
Donald Trump
admitted to absolute corruption through his ability to bankroll politicians. “I
will tell you,” Trump said in 2016, “our system is broken.” Trump said he did
what Jesus asked in Luke 6:30, give to everybody who asks. “I give to
everybody,” Trump boasted, “When I need something from them, two years, three
years later, I call. They are always there for me.”
Alas, Wyoming
is not exempt. Money has swamped our elections. It wasn’t always that way.
There was a time when big money didn’t matter in Wyoming. That has changed.
In the
Republican primary, Foster Friess spent 2.7 million dollars to buy 29,842
votes. That’s ninety dollars per vote. What does a candidate do with that much
money? That is what it took for Friess to purchase the runner-up position while
subjecting voters to countless, annoying robocalls and a constant stream of
television commercials. The money also bought a misleading, last-minute poll, used
to argue that he, not Mark Gordon, was winning.
Sam Galeotos dropped
2.1 million dollars, $144 per vote, for a fourth-place finish. Third place went
to Harriett Hageman. Her 25,052 votes cost about a million uncompetitive
dollars, or $40 per vote.
The winner
was Mark Gordon. Not counting the money spent on his behalf by the so-called
“Independent Republicans of Wyoming,” Mr. Gordon spent around two million
dollars, better than 50 dollars per vote to secure the nomination.
John Barrasso
spent 3.9 million dollars to keep his Senate seat. In the primary, he received
74,292 votes. Each cost his campaign a little better than $52. Despite his
enormous personal wealth, Barrasso’s opponent Dave Dodson was only willing to
spend $42 per vote in a losing cause.
In the recent
gubernatorial campaign, Republican candidates spent a total of about 8 million
dollars. The combined vote received by the six contenders was 116,673. On
average, they paid more than $68 per vote.
The
Democratic Party’s nominees were pikers compared to their GOP counterparts. The
Democrats were funded at pre-1990 levels. Mary Throne, now running against Mark
Gordon for the Governorship, spent a meager $112,298.12. Her 12,948 votes came
at the bargain investment of $8.67 each. Barrasso’s opponent in the general
election is Gary Trauner. Mr. Trauner’s 17,562 votes came at a cost of
$366,798, or about $21 each.
Dear voters,
problems accompany the ability of one party’s candidates to outspend their
opponents by such a wide margin. That kind of disparity means the better funded
candidate doesn’t need to knock on doors, hold townhall meetings, debate
opponents, or get down into the grassroots. Lesser funded candidates spend
their money on shoe leather and gasoline to travel Wyoming’s 33,000 miles of roads.
Exorbitantly funded candidates can, instead, buy negative commercials to run
every time there is a break in a program.
When a
candidate has so much more money than an opponent, that candidate can afford to
hire outside consultants who arrange it so your telephone rings off the hook
with robocalls and phony push polls designed to provide voters with false and
misleading information about an opponent.
Then there
are quid pro quos. Like Trump, the contributors dropping big money are like
Edgar Allan Poe’s “Tell Tale Heart.” They never let candidates forget what they
compromised when they took the money.
We the people
allow that behavior though most say they’d like big money removed from
politics. Don’t countenance those who have amassed large war chests by making
political commitments to big-money special interests. This year, reward those
who don’t have access to dark money and wealthy contributors.
No comments:
Post a Comment