Saturday
Oct312009
Politics and Money: Should the Big-Bucks US Campaigns Concern Britain?
Saturday, October 31, 2009 at 8:12
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
In the 1940s and 1950s, my family looked forward to the arrival of so-called care packages from our better-off relatives in New York. The goodies were marvellous. Chocolate was very scarce in those days. Hence, I was led to believe that all Americans enjoyed abundance, whereas all Brits could look forward to was rationing and penury.
I think of those care packages and wonder if British politicians like Prime Minister Gordon Brown and opposition leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg look longingly towards America. In the United Kingdom, campaign spending is limited and closely monitored and regulated, but political parties manage to get themselves heavily into trouble and debt at election time. To repair the damage, the major parties have acted like shiftier financial advisors. “Don’t 'give' us the campaign contribution, Mr. X, lend it to us and then we don’t have to declare it.” If a Mr. Tony Blair thought up this clever little ruse, maybe he should be taking a more active role with J. P. Morgan.
Yet this British manoeuvring is child's play to the sleights-of-hand in the US, where American campaign finance laws do not work.
As a result of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 1st Amendment that money equates to free speech, it is almost impossible to restrain what American politicians do to raise funds and how much they spend promoting themselves. There have been valiant efforts to exercise control, most recently the McCain-Feingold statute, but the “soft money” ruse can get around pretty well every regulation with little effort. There is also an exception that a candidate may finance himself, something that has been a distinct advantage to Michael Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is running for re-election as New York City mayor. It is reported that so far he has spent $85 million of his own money on his campaign and it is estimated that he will spend a total of $140 million before Election Day on 3 November, election-day. In his three New York City elections, he will have parted with $250 million or more. Not that will bankrupt him --- Bloomberg is said to be worth $16 billion.
There is a major plus to this expenditure. Mayor Bloomberg’s $1 million a day on advertising, trave,l and entertainment goes directly into the New York City economy. New York consumerism receives a welcome boost at election time, and Bloomberg's campaign also offers employment to more than a hundred people.
But is there not a minus? Is there not the toxic element that if you are not mega-rich, you don’t stand a chance against an opponent with mega-bucks. The even playing field turns into more than a sloping pitch. It becomes a ski piste.
Bloomberg is already a two-term incumbent. So why does he feel the need to spend so much on re-election, rather than rely on the eight-year record of his administration? Yale political science professor Jennifer Stern comments, “I have never seen anything like this – it’s off the charts. He’s in a league of his own.”
Returning across the water, what if super-rich Brits, or those from abroad with interests here who consider naturalisation as British citizens, seek political office? Would they find ways around our election laws to buy their seats at the high political table? I like it that our politicians have to account for every penny at election time and woe betide them if they overspend. I also like it that we don’t have “soft money” distinctions. I warm to the fact that £10 million is a regarded as a large fortune by our political parties.
I wonder whether a majority of New York City voters are feeling the same about now?
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
In the 1940s and 1950s, my family looked forward to the arrival of so-called care packages from our better-off relatives in New York. The goodies were marvellous. Chocolate was very scarce in those days. Hence, I was led to believe that all Americans enjoyed abundance, whereas all Brits could look forward to was rationing and penury.I think of those care packages and wonder if British politicians like Prime Minister Gordon Brown and opposition leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg look longingly towards America. In the United Kingdom, campaign spending is limited and closely monitored and regulated, but political parties manage to get themselves heavily into trouble and debt at election time. To repair the damage, the major parties have acted like shiftier financial advisors. “Don’t 'give' us the campaign contribution, Mr. X, lend it to us and then we don’t have to declare it.” If a Mr. Tony Blair thought up this clever little ruse, maybe he should be taking a more active role with J. P. Morgan.
Yet this British manoeuvring is child's play to the sleights-of-hand in the US, where American campaign finance laws do not work.
As a result of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 1st Amendment that money equates to free speech, it is almost impossible to restrain what American politicians do to raise funds and how much they spend promoting themselves. There have been valiant efforts to exercise control, most recently the McCain-Feingold statute, but the “soft money” ruse can get around pretty well every regulation with little effort. There is also an exception that a candidate may finance himself, something that has been a distinct advantage to Michael Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is running for re-election as New York City mayor. It is reported that so far he has spent $85 million of his own money on his campaign and it is estimated that he will spend a total of $140 million before Election Day on 3 November, election-day. In his three New York City elections, he will have parted with $250 million or more. Not that will bankrupt him --- Bloomberg is said to be worth $16 billion.
There is a major plus to this expenditure. Mayor Bloomberg’s $1 million a day on advertising, trave,l and entertainment goes directly into the New York City economy. New York consumerism receives a welcome boost at election time, and Bloomberg's campaign also offers employment to more than a hundred people.
But is there not a minus? Is there not the toxic element that if you are not mega-rich, you don’t stand a chance against an opponent with mega-bucks. The even playing field turns into more than a sloping pitch. It becomes a ski piste.
Bloomberg is already a two-term incumbent. So why does he feel the need to spend so much on re-election, rather than rely on the eight-year record of his administration? Yale political science professor Jennifer Stern comments, “I have never seen anything like this – it’s off the charts. He’s in a league of his own.”
Returning across the water, what if super-rich Brits, or those from abroad with interests here who consider naturalisation as British citizens, seek political office? Would they find ways around our election laws to buy their seats at the high political table? I like it that our politicians have to account for every penny at election time and woe betide them if they overspend. I also like it that we don’t have “soft money” distinctions. I warm to the fact that £10 million is a regarded as a large fortune by our political parties.
I wonder whether a majority of New York City voters are feeling the same about now?
Within hours of the British court order for the release of documents connected with the alleged torture of detainee Binyam Mohamed, and British Foreign Minister David Miliband's insistence that release of the material would risk the US-UK intelligence relationship, I spoke with Peter Allen of BBC Radio 5 about the case (and, yes, I did use the word "lie" with reference to Mr Miliband). 
This afternoon 
Update (3 March): The Guardian reports....
As we write regularly on public diplomacy, we noted the latest entry by our colleague Ali Fisher 