You are currently viewing the printable version of this article, to return to the normal page, please click here.

TYRRELL: Progressive prance of the fat cats

Liberal campaign finance reform exchanges PACs for super PACs

Story Topics
Question of the Day

Should Congress make English the official language of the U.S.?

View results

An underlying theme of our times that has gone unperceived by the high and mighty in media, government and other locales where the politically alive come to roost is the thumping failure of an increasing number of counterproductive old progressive reforms. Once they were beheld as prodigies from the minds of superior citizens, such stars of yesteryear as Robert M. La Follette and Woodrow Wilson. Now they are revealed as hollow shams or at best curiosities. Surely soon they will be seen for what they are, catnip from the egotists.

In a political year, progressive reforms from a bygone era are all around us, assumed by the high and mighty as the way things should be. Is there too much money in politics? But of course. Are the pols being bought off by the vested interests? For a certitude, the giant corporations, the fat cats, the vested interests are flooding the halls of Congress and lesser political venues with cash (never in this list is included the unions, particularly the public-sector unions). What shall be done about this vast influx of money into politics? Though Americans spend more on dog food than on elections, our troubled reformers have a solution: cut donations to politicians from large donors. Alas, every time they do so, the clever pols - often, clever reform pols - find new ways to fund their campaigns.

Most recently, this process began with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, which unconstitutionally limited corporate and union freedom of political speech. So ruled the Supreme Court in its 2010 Citizens United decision. The eventual result was ever-more accountants hired by campaigns and the advent of today's super PACs, which is to say the political action committees of the present moment that raise and spend large amounts on politics but claim not to be in cahoots with any of the politicians they favor. Consequently, there is even less accountability by super PACs.

The campaign finance reformers will now go after the super PACs. Some fanciful reform of them will be dreamt up. The pols will again thwart the reform and the process will continue. But maybe enough is enough. In truth, the only reform necessary is transparency. If the electorate knows the origins of donations and the direction in which they go, they will know enough about the candidates to cast a sensible vote.

Which brings us to the absurdity of the caucuses and the primaries. Bring back the smoke-filled room. Or at least a room full of Democrats and Republicans that are truly representative of their parties.

Progressives once saw the primary system as the latest advance in the democratic process. Thrust the party bosses aside and let the citizenry vote for the presidential candidates. The consequence is that the casual voter overwhelms the committed party member. Often the one-issue voter overwhelms the committed party voter with several issues and the good of the party in mind. Large amounts of money go to local media to coax out the casual voter once or twice in an electoral cycle. The result is that a transient mob - and sometimes a very small transient mob - gives us our presidential candidates for the general election: Barack Obama for the Democrats, probably Mitt Romney for the Republicans. In neither case is the candidate a typical Democrat or Republican.

Under the present system of caucus and primary, voting the great states of Iowa and New Hampshire are given disproportionate voice in who will be chosen for the presidential race. Frankly, I like the galoots from Iowa and New Hampshire. From all I can tell, they look and think pretty much like me, especially on politics. Yet there is something wrong here. I think way back before the progressives were ever heard of, state conventions made a lot more sense than the present system. As I see it, most Americans are coming to agree.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is founder and editor-in-chief of the American Spectator and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. His most recent book is "After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery" (Thomas Nelson, 2010).

© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks
You Might Also Like
  • Maureen McDonnell looks on as her husband, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, made a statement on Tuesday after the couple was indicted on corruption charges. (associated press)

    PRUDEN: Where have the big-time grifters gone?

  • This photo taken Jan. 9, 2014,  shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie gesturing as he answers a question during a news conference  at the Statehouse in Trenton.  Christie will propose extending the public school calendar and lengthening the school day in a speech he hopes will help him rebound from an apparent political payback scheme orchestrated by key aides. The early front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination will make a case Tuesday Jan. 14, 2014, that children who spend more time in school graduate better prepared academically, according to excerpts of his State of the State address obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

    BRUCE: Bombastic arrogance or humble determination? Chris Christie’s choice

  • ** FILE ** Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

    PRUDEN: The question to haunt the West

  • Get Breaking Alerts