One of the themes you'll hear from time to time about the 'better days' of American politics, is a reference to record voter participation during the 1880's and 90's. The idea, or so the story goes, is that the American electorate was more erudite, more engaged, more committed.
Well, that's the theory - in reality of course, there are some glaring holes - namely, people worked enormous hours, had little free time to become aware - and less access to information that they do today, certainly.
No, instead the truth is a bit more seedy - voters and pricinct organizers were often paid to vote and recruit voters - vote buying was big business and business was good. Paul Krugman's book "Concience of a Liberal" outlines some specifics, but suffice to say - there was a lot more store bought voting, and a lot less true interest - than has been the mantra from teachers or from the right-wing of today which looks back fondly on those days of yore where their financial largesse was easily translated directly into votes.
And so today's story is very troubling - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/07/politics/washingtonpost/main4327373.shtml -
Here's the thing, people can be paid for LOTS of things, but getting paid to essentially 'make up your mind' about McCain (in a positive way) and then go proselitize about McCain's virtues and Obama's sins, is nothing short of vote buying through an oblique measure. For example, let's say you're on the fence, and someone OFFERS to pay you to support their candidate - oh, online sure, only online - well, you might just very well take up that offer... I mean heck, you're getting PAID!, right?
It's also a direct violation of the idea of full disclosre of purchased advertising, as, since it's 'rewards' where the activity isn't fully tracked, it skirts the requirement to disclose campaign media purchases, both dollars committed, and location/method of delivery. McCain's camp certainly could never track the number of places a person might post - certainly not in any way easily verifiable - and as it's a contest, there's little sure way to know the value of funds given, which, um I'm guessing, they may just undercount dollars committed - just because it makes it look LESS like they're buying votes the smaller the number of dollars involved.
It's damned shady, and decidedly unethical, buying votes, obliquely is no better than buying them directly. Using clandestine moles to plant messages is shall we say, somewhat reminiscent of when BushCo put commercials out there made to look like news, but which were really push advertising for their programs, oh, and then there's the times they paid political pundits to push their agenda. You may remember those - the one's that ruined the careers of a couple of pundits because their veneer of objectivity was destroyed. Well this is just the exact same kind of thing writ large, and it's shameful, it's also sure as hell further evidence old "Straight Talk" is anything but straight, willing to use whatever shady trick he can get away with - including having paid poseuers on websites pretending to be the genuine article, deliverign unscripted and independently developed opinion.
It's also in a word, pathetic. If you can't attract votes and supporters to your idea because they are good ideas, and instead need to pay them to support you, perhaps it's not just your 'straight talk' approach that's the problem, it's your ideas.
I couldn't see the story you linked to, but if it says what it sounds like it says, and is correct, then eww! Sleazy!
ReplyDeleteEquating what the McCain campaign is doing to buying votes is rather ridiculous. This is meant to energize their supporters. Campaigns have done things like this forever. This is an extension of the "rewards" anyone gets if they volunteer on a campaign - meeting the candidate, a free t-shirt, etc. It's not like they are offering cash for comments, and I don't think much of a correlation between internet comments and voter turnout could be proven.
ReplyDeleteI'd argue this is less criminal than unions spending dues on political actions their members do not have to explicitly endorse. Unions pay for voter turnout drives to explicitly get people to the polls.
I agree with you sentiment, but I think the example you use to make the case is pretty weak.
Cynic,
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you a question, say you're undecided, and you see an offer for money to solicit on behalf of a candidate - would you say you are more, or less likely to then vote for that candidate, assuming you then go and solicit for him/her?
Second question, let's say you go and post/solicit for the candidate, say, among your friends, on blogs you frequent, and your friends, who might be undecided, and don't know you are ambivilant (just for example), then are they more, or less likely to be swayed by your opinion, assuming that, as your friend, they respect your opinion?
The rather clear answers to both are 'yes', especially the latter, and moreover, it's why the schill 'acting' of political pundits, secretly hired by the Bush Admnisistration, was seen as caniving and underhanded. It attempted to portray as honestly and freely held opinion that which someone was paid to say. It's dishonest, and it's nothing short of buying the opinon of the reader.
Lastly, I'm confused how you can equate someone having dues they pay as part of a union, used by that union to advance the cause of that union, as buying votes. I suppose you could say they are buying advertising, which certainly sways votes, but it is openly done - and I don't get to choose where the company I support donates it's PAC contributions through it's senior executives, many of whom are often 'encouraged' to contribute to certain campaigns - I don't get to choose that any more than the union member does, and I don't get to choose it any less so either. There's no difference. Further, the union member doesn't work for the union, however, the union member benefits from collective bargaining power offered only because of that union, so, the situations aren't equivilant. As an employee, I make money for that company - as a union member, I pay directly for the work of the union, but clearly, if we take a poll of union members about whether they'd rather get the portion of their dues back which is used for political activity, probably 90% will say 'yes', yet, I'm given zero such opportunity within a company. My wages help to pay the lavish salaries which CEO's drove the country toward, and I get no voice. If that CEO chooses to contribute $5000 to EVERY politician I dislike, I get no voice.
Yet, that's still not the same as clandestinely paying people to attempt to sway votes. That's indirect political solicitation, it's dishonest, and it probably should be declared to even be legal.
Whether it happened before doesn't make it right, either. That's a nonsequitor.
Thank you for writing, but I hope you can see, I don't agree, and it is, in fact, buying votes.
By the way, there is nothing whatsoever criminal about unions or CEO's using funds to back political campaigns.
ReplyDeleteAs well, voter turnout drives cannot be considered bad, as, by US general election theory, there is NO harm to either candidate by poeple's votes being counted, or encouraged to vote. Each candidated stands an equal chance to earn that vote.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete