EA WorldView

An advertisement supporting Newt Gingrich attacks Mitt Romney...because he speaks French

This morning the news that Newt Gingrich has won the South Carolina primary has turned the contest for the Republican nomination into a showdown between him and Mitt Romney. Within a week, a campaign which looked to be a march to a Romney coronation --- livened in South Carolina by spirited debates and Gingrich's attacks on "elites" and the media, amidst more revelations about three marriages and infidelities --- offered more drama and spectacle.

EA's John Matlin celebrates and then frets:

I admit it. I love American elections. Often it’s pure razzle-dazzle.

In Britain, elections are such dull affairs. Pitiful bunting, no marching bands, few outdoor rallies, and almost no voting corruption. Even worse, there’s little engagement with the public. Ask most Brits for a comment on the election process and they will reply, “It goes on too long.” Too long usually equates to 28 days.

In the US, however, the media will seek to feed the beast that is the 24-hour news cycle from now until November. More money will be spent on elections than ever before, boosting the American economy. with advertising and manufacturing --- pins, paper weights, flags and buttons proliferate --- benefitting from the politicians’ demands. This is the engine of capitalism.

In the UK, political spending is strictly controlled and limited, and there have been several prosecutions of British politicians who have fallen foul of the rules. In America, this doesn’t really happen often. "Maverick" John McCain, before he ran for the Presidency, sponsored a bill in Congress which sought to regulate political funding. Didn't work. The McCain-Feingold law has been honoured mainly in the breaching of it: soft money not only pervades the American system, it overwhelms it.

And now something new for the razzle-dazzle. "SuperPACs" are being used to attack candidates.

Now let me be clear: I do not like the principle underlying Political Action Committees. The Supreme Court, in its dubious wisdom, has decided that speech is money --- as money is speech --- and that individuals could contribute whatever they liked to a political campaign in the form of advertising, provided they did not name the politician they supported. (It's an odd distinction but the Supreme Court has a history of peculiar decisions, for example, “separate but equal but separate” and “yes, you can carry a concealed Uzi".)

Recently, the Supremes ruled that corporations as well as individuals could spend their money on SuperPACS. How is this Constitutional? Did the framers really consider that an individual or corporation could have the almost unfettered right to spend their (or their shareholders') money on political campaigns?

Let’s examine the underlying principle: speech is money. Obviously, it is not. The First Amendment mentions speech but makes no mention of money whatsoever, expressly or implicitly. If the First Amendment is to be interpreted as the right to spend money as desired, why is it not constitutional to fund a crime? Why can I not pay for someone to maim my American neighbour because he refuses to reduce the height of a hedge?

Last week,, I saw a commercial attacking Mitt Romney because, apart from other things, he speaks French. I leave you to your individual opinion on that supposed deviant activity; however, just because an individual has money, lots of it, does not mean he can be endorsed to plaster the airwaves supporting or attacking candidates. To spend big money --- corporate money --- on attack advertisements corrupts the system.

And spending tens of millions of dollars to support the dumbing-down of politics, and thus America, is surely the worst aberration of all.