Creating Jobs, Privileging Business: But Do Businesses Really Create Jobs?

We hear it often that business creates jobs: a notion that seems to go largely unquestioned. Virtually all politicians and pundits accept this basic causal reasoning and from this posture offer countless suggestions regarding appropriate policies. Indeed, this simple notion attaches to a whole range of issues and ideas, of ways of doing politics, and more. The idea that businesses create jobs raises certain questions. If we go so far as to reject this proposition outright, however, it opens up a whole different manner of viewing politics and treating problems like unemployment.

First the questions that help reveal the underlying or hidden tendencies. In a very simplistic sense, of course, businesses do create jobs since many people work for business. This is true, but incomplete, telling only part of the story. Governments also create jobs as do non-profits and organizations that we would not really consider ‘business.’ But why should someone working as a teacher, a cop, a soldier, a staffer at a community organization, or even a doctor not count the same as someone working at Wal-Mart or Starbucks just because the latter are businesses? If only businesses create jobs, then who created those other jobs? By this logic, I suppose, laying- off 100,000 teachers should have no impact on the employment picture since again governments do not create jobs. Of course, some may contend that only businesses create “productive” jobs, but this seems to refer solely to manufacturing or even agricultural jobs, which is a very small portion of our labor market. So if jobs come from different sources other than business, why privilege business in our thinking about the sources of jobs and exclude others?

The mantra that business creates jobs raises even more fundamental questions crystallized by the current electoral races. If businesses create jobs, then why does everyone blame the government for unemployment? Should we not blame business? If there is widespread unemployment and businesses create jobs, then apparently they are not creating enough jobs. Ironically, Democrats and particularly Republicans, who strongly embrace the pro-business position encapsulated in “business creates jobs,” run on a platform of creating jobs. But if businesses and not government create jobs – according to the prevailing logic – then why would you even want to go into government for the purposing of creating jobs: the top issue in this campaign? Since most politicians are also business people, then why not just create jobs from their privileged location where jobs are created: business. Again this is particularly strange and ironic to hear coming from Republicans who a) blame the government for unemployment, b) turnaround and argue that businesses create jobs, and then c) clamor to take control of the government in the name of creating jobs.

Accepting the causal logic that businesses create jobs, of course, leads to the question: why don’t they? The argument usually heard from politicians and pundits is that government – which really does not create jobs according to this narrative – gets in the way of business and thus prevents them from creating jobs. According to this viewpoint, government – which cannot create jobs — must create the conditions conducive for business to do their thing and create jobs. Of course any good analyst immediately recognizes within this explanation that the government in fact does ‘create’ jobs by conditioning the ability of business to create jobs, but that is a different sort of contention than I wish to pursue here.

An alternative explanation often heard why businesses are not creating jobs is because there is no demand. Businesses need customers. And as everyone knows, during a recession demand falls, inventories become bloated, businesses face declining revenue, and lay-off workers. But from this vantage point, businesses do not really create jobs, demand creates jobs.

The difference between the two views — businesses create jobs versus demand creates jobs — may seem trivial and even semantic, but the policy implications and even ideological underpinnings are vastly different. If we accept the notion that businesses create jobs, then we pursue policies that privilege and favor business. This includes tax breaks for business and the wealthy who run the businesses and invest, subsidies, privatization or government out-sourcing, and deregulation, to name a few. Or to put it in Republican terms, policies that get the government off the backs of business. Since jobs are important – a point everyone tends to agree on – and given that businesses create jobs, then such pro-business policies become priorities, prompting politicians to compete against one another to prove their pro-business credentials.  

If, however, we accept the notion that demand creates jobs rather than business, then we must ask why demand is low. This invariably leads us to focus on different factors like incomes, wages, poverty, the struggles of ordinary families to make ends meet, and the distribution of income and wealth. If we look into these areas what we find, as described in detail in the recent works of Robert Reich and Ariana Hunffington, is a pattern of rising inequality. Indeed, the share of income going to the middle and working class in recent decades has fallen. Working class families have struggled amidst declining or stagnant real wages with many leveraging their only asset, their home, to borrow to make ends meet. But that panacea of cheap money to sustain consumer spending is over and demand has plummeted. Meanwhile, the share of income going to the richest segments of the population has skyrocketed while their tax burden has fallen. Not since the 1920s has the share of income going to the wealthiest 1% of the population been so great. Never has their tax burden been so light.

Accepting that demand fuels the creation of jobs, of course, leads to a different policy approach than if we start with the notion that businesses create jobs. Rather than designing policies that favor business, policies targeting demand would favor middle and working class individuals and force us to come face to face with the needs to redistribute income and/or engage in stimulus spending to bolster demand. But not in an ideologically naïve way like most politicians – arguing that they represent the middle and working class and then contend that the best way to help the middle class is to favor big business. Instead, policies would focus on taxing the wealthy to the levels of the past, favoring workers and wage increases, and even subsidizing demand rather than supply. 

Those touting the notion that businesses create jobs and hence favoring pro-business policies would surely scream “class warfare” at this point. But their approach and viewpoint is equally class-oriented: it just favors the business class. If calling for a redistribution of income downward constitutes “class warfare,” then surely promoting policies that redistribute income upward must also qualify as such. The notion that business creates jobs is thus a salvo in class warfare that passes for normal. The notion is so accepted, that we disagree only on how to help businesses in their quest to create jobs. But this, after all, is the power of ideology: to convince and persuade people to the point of creating the notion of universal truth, of accepted wisdom, of fashioning the “point of departure” for any discussion.

Stephen D. Morris, October 2010

Salary Caps and Elections

All major sports have come to accept the concept of salary caps. Though it was a long fight and even borders on collusion, salary caps have tamed market forces to guarantee a certain level of competition. Teams in big markets and deep pockets are now somewhat limited in being able to buy a team and a championship. Granted, high-priced players and teams do not always when the crown, but they do more often than not. The result has been more competition, and greater excitement for the fans. By leveling the playing field, even smaller market teams have a chance to compete against wealthier teams. Talent, coaching, and chemistry make the difference rather than money.

 In the electoral arena, however, we don’t have salary caps. Owing to  a string of policies and a handful of court decisions regarding free speech (e.g. Buckley, Citizens United), candidates must not only manage a massive fund-raising machine, but can spend as much as they like on their own races. Even corporations now can spend an unlimited amount through advocacy campaigns and party donations. Of course, money does not always mean electoral victory, but there is a strong correlation. So strong, in fact, that the true contest may be over who can raise the most money, rather than the election itself simply because if you can’t raise enough, you will not make it to election day.

 Just like sports prior to salary caps, competition among candidates favors those with resources or access to resources. Our representatives thus tend to be disproportionally wealthy, and to hang-out with other wealthy individuals or representatives from wealthy corporations. It is surprising that competition is deemed more important in major league sports than money, despite the fact that it is a business. Yet in elections, which (theoretically) is not a business, competition and a level playing field are considered less important than money. Perhaps democratizing sports is a step in the right direction.

 Stephen D. Morris, September 2010

Mosque-like Establishments at (or near) Ground Zero

The proposed building of an Islamic Center close to ground zero has raised intense concerns. For those opposed, the endeavor seems disrespectful given that the terrorists of 9/11 were Muslims. In their minds, I suppose, they see the Islamic Center as supporting and promoting the same religion that, through the actions of the terrorists of 9/11, vilifies, attacks and seeks the destruction of the US, “our” way of life, and perhaps even “our” religious values.

Perhaps they indeed have a point… but why draw the line of demarcation at the denominational level? The terrorists were not just Muslim, they were religious fanatics, motivated by an uncompromising faith that asserts to know the truth based not on evidence or reasoning, but on sacred texts, stories, and metaphysics. Though their motivations and even frustrations were at heart political, it was religion that provided the terrorists their overriding sense of purpose, and a tool to distinguish right from wrong in a broader sense than the here-and-now. Their religion justified their actions in part by anointing and celebrating deeds designed to spread the faith; their religion minimized the importance of life; and their religion promised them all a reward in the afterlife.

Perhaps then out of respect for the victims of 9/11 there should be no religious institutions or establishments at or near ground zero. Allowing any religion – not just Muslims — to occupy what many in the country consider holy or sacred (but in a secular sense) ground would be disrespectful. This is particularly true for all the religions bent on proselytizing, on spreading the faith, on literally “taking over the world,” and imposing their views and laws on everyone. Indeed, religion was behind the terrorist attacks. Targeting just the Muslims but allowing other religious institutions to occupy the area seems almost to fan the religious flames, privileging one religion over another when, if we cast the net wide enough, all could be condemned.

Perhaps many will reject this idea as nonsense. Protestants and Catholics will surely point out that “they” did not blow up the twin towers. Indeed, why condemn all religions when the terrorists were of one particular religion?

Perhaps they indeed have a point… why condemn an entire class of people (the religious) for the actions of a few (the Muslims)? But where then should we draw the lines of demarcation? Who should be included and excluded? According to the same logic, why condemn an entire class of people (Muslims) by the actions of a few (the terrorists)? Just as we can differentiate among religions – despite their commonalities — surely we can differentiate between these two groups – despite their commonalities — and not consider them to be synonymous.  

 Stephen D. Morris, August 2010

Governments Try to Avoid Taxes Just Like Everyone Else

Governments, in theory the representatives of the people, need resources in order to pursue a wide range of objectives deemed appropriate by society. Everything costs money and governments have to secure the resources to fund programs, and enforce laws. In the US, two curious ways are used to disguise taxes: one at the federal level in conjunction with record high deficits targeting the rich; the other at the state level targeting the less rich.

Borrowing rather than taxing. At the federal level, the guise is to borrow rather than tax. Indeed, every year the federal government borrows a significant amount of money to have enough to pay for its deficit spending. In March 2010, for instance, according to official statistics from “Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of the United States,” the government owed $12.8 trillion in debt. Some of that money ($3.9 trillion) comes from foreigners who lend us money (invest by purchasing T-bills and government bonds) and who we must pay back with interest. There extra money comes in part from huge trade deficits. But much of the money ($7.5) that the government borrows comes from wealthy private and corporate investors in the US who, like the foreigners, we also have to pay back with interest. From the perspective of the wealthy individual or corporate investor, lending the money to the US is far more preferable than having government authoritatively take it through taxation. The government does not have to pay back the money taken through taxes, much less pay interest on it. The wealthy investor thus benefits both from the government programs and services their money helps finance, and the interest on his/her loan to the government, and shoulders no additional costs. Of course for the government, which has the power to tax, borrowing the money is much more expenses than taxing it – in an economic sense, but maybe not in a political sense. Seemingly this slight-of-hand can go on for some time as the government borrows money to pay interest on past credit.

 Of course taxing the wealthy is seen by some as problematic because it potentially decreases investment and can distort economic growth. But if part of that investment goes into government bonds anyway, the impact seems rather minimal. Investing in plant and equipment creates jobs, but not purchasing T-bills. Of course, having the government take the money through taxes as opposed to borrowing it might reduce their level of wealth, but government debt reduces the wealth of everyone. Nonetheless, if I had a few extra hundred thousand dollars or so, I would much rather lend it to the government, get paid back with interest, than have them take it.

 Gaming rather than taxing.  At the state level, governments take a different approach to avoid an upfront approach to taxing: they play on people’s hopes and dreams to get them willingly and voluntarily to part with their money for a one-in-a-million chance of becoming rich. In the lottery scenario, government takes in huge sums from mainly lower and middle class citizens and then redistributes a portion of that money to randomly selected individuals. The difference is used to fund state programs, particularly education. Once again, the government gets some of the funding it needs, provides the services, but does not burden the people with additional taxes. Instead, it all becomes part of a big game disguised as a mechanism of social mobility. Unlike borrowing rather than taxing, the gaming option does not really cost the government additional resources since it does take in more than it awards in winnings. Still, as in borrowing rather than taxing, it seems an almost dishonest way of disguising the need to secure the level of funding needed to pay for programs that we as a society deem necessary.

 Of course, winning the lottery big now puts you in a position to turn around and lend the money to the government by purchasing T-bills and other debt instruments. The government will then pay you back with interest.

 Stephen D. Morris, August 2010

In the Immigration Debate: Who is the Victim and Who Owes Who?

One of the biggest stumbling blocks to immigration reform involves the problem of what to do with (or to) the approximately 10-12 million undocumented aliens (workers) living in the US. Those who highlight this problem typically use the term “amnesty” pejoratively to refer to any path to citizenship. Underscoring that the “illegal” has committed an unlawful act, they believe that some price must be paid to society as a result. Simply allowing the undocumented a path to citizenship, they contend, rewards rather than punishes the unlawful act of entering the country illegally (or staying beyond the time stipulated in their visa), and, moreover, tends to punish those waiting patiently in line to enter the country legally.

 But even if we accept that logic, there are alternative avenues for the undocumented to “pay” for their “crime” and still enjoy a path to citizenship. One approach might be to take into consideration time already served, or payment rendered. Most undocumented workers have provided benefits to society through their labor. As most pundits now acknowledge, the vast majority of undocumented have been in the country working, contributing to the local and national economy and to the communities in which they live. They have paid taxes (try refusing to pay the sales tax at Wal-Mart next time by telling them you are an illegal alien), contributed in many cases to social security, helped build local communities, and even enriched the local and national culture. Most have even contributed, through remittances, to their families back home, thereby potentially helping our neighboring country develop and ease US-Mexican relations. Such contributions are important and can be viewed as a down payment for a path to citizenship. After all, if there is one quality we do want in citizens, it is that they are productive members of the community.

 The amount the undocumented have paid back through their hard labor is compounded even further by the lost wages and hardships that stem from their ambiguous status. Again, most acknowledge that undocumented workers have not only worked, but in some form or another have been exploited. They may be paid less than a minimum wage, denied basic rights and protections owed to workers, and/or suffered an assortment of abuses because employers know they have little to no legal recourse against such abuses. Not paying an undocumented worker or calling the migra to deal with unruly or complaining workers leaves the undocumented facing untold hardship. Someone always gains from the exploitation of workers and in this case it is businesses through higher profits, and even consumers through lower prices. This adds then to the steep price that the undocumented have already paid to society and endured for their illegal status: in a sense, time already served.

 A second way for the undocumented to pay for their crime beyond time served would be for them to turn state evidence. Our judicial system often grants immunity to lesser criminals in return for evidence against others. The real crime of undocumented workers in the US involves businesses taking advantage of Mexico’s poverty to offer low wages to people seeking a better life for themselves and their family. Businesses offer employment not to help the Mexican immigrant pull him/herself out of poverty or for some lofty humanitarian reason, but because it is profitable. As pro-business people like to remind us, businesses create jobs (actually consumers do…but that is another story). The undocumented workers do not create the jobs by their mere presence: they come because businesses entice them here by opportunities. This is the supply side of the equation: the jobs. In other words, despite the sacrifices of leaving their family behind, the hardship of the journey north, the potential danger from coyotes and heat, the exploitation and often humiliation by managers, the risks of back-breaking work, and even the degrading racism and scapegoating by the public and pundits, the benefits outweigh the costs. So one way for the undocumented to “pay” for their “crime” of being here illegally and thus earn a path to citizenship would be to provide evidence against businesses that have hired undocumented workers (a crime that largely goes unpunished) or violated the rights of workers (also a crime). Surely, some arrangement can be made for these companies to pay compensation for their actions. Only once businesses understand that they cannot exploit the cheap labor of undocumented workers will the problem of undocumented workers be resolved. Even creating a guest worker program would merely remove some of the abuses while unfortunately legalizing others (e.g. subminimal pay).

 For now, businesses enjoy the best of both worlds: the fruits of a system that makes villains of the undocumented and devotes most of its enforcement resources to rounding them up and shipping them back across the border to join the ranks of the poor searching for work at any cost. Despite the law that makes it a crime for businesses to hire undocumented workers, few are ever prosecuted, and few in the immigration debate are demanding that they “pay” a price for their illegal actions.

 All of these approaches — acknowledging the contributions undocumented workers have already made to society and their exploitation, and even helping us crack down on businesses operating illegally – can be considered payment for the act of being in the country illegally and hence the right to a path toward citizenship. More fundamentally, though, these approaches raise the question: who is the victim here? In the mainstream debate, the victim invariably seems to be us:  the documented, the legal residents of the country, the law-abiding citizen, the society at large, perhaps even the state whose laws have been violated. But how can we be the victim if the surplus value of undocumented workers has benefited us in so many ways. We are certainly not the ones being exploited, being denied rights, or forced by circumstances to risk life and limb to obtain a better life. Instead, the victim – as is usually the case — is the poor; the undocumented worker who has been denied basic rights and yet despite it all likes living here and actually wants to be a part of this country. If we stop to ask “what characteristics do we really want among those who wish to become residents”? We would probably agree that we prefer individuals who work hard, who are committed to family and the community, and to abiding by the law (since an undocumented knows that any infraction could result in deportation). Such spirit adds to our societies. Perhaps it is time then that we make amends to them; not the other way around. 

 Stephen D. Morris, August 2010

Campaign Contributions as Anonymous Donations?

Like those of spring, we participate in the rites of the campaign season. Mud-splattered candidates promise never to stoop to negative campaigning; they claim to be political outsiders, but with the inside skills needed to get things done; and they denounce polls except the ones showing them ahead. The public, for its part, complains about the lack of attention to real issues and governmental deadlock and then gets swept away by sound bites and personalities and votes a split-ticket.

Among the more prominent rites of the campaign season is a collective expression of amazement and disgust over the amounts of money spent during the season and money’s role in shaping the process. Deep down, of course, the billions of dollars spent on campaigns or the apparent ability of money to buy political influence never really shocks us. To an extent, we have become somewhat immune to those realizations. Instead, the ritual expression of shock comes from discovering that most of what goes on is legal, that what appears as clearly unethical is permissible under the law, or that, despite the debate, there is never any serious effort to change things. Sometimes this ritual debate lingers on through post-election scandals and TV-dramas, but rarely does the sense of amazement or disgust last beyond the post-campaign season.

But why, despite the ritualistic debate, does the perception that money rules in campaigns persist? It is not as if reforms have not been tried. The 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act, a series of court decisions and a host of administrative rulings by the Federal Election Commission, for instance, have all shaped the electoral/campaign landscape over the years, but have failed to alter the nature of campaign finance or cripple the influence of money.

Standing in the way of change is a combination of intractable philosophical, political and practical dilemmas. The philosophical dilemma pits an individual’s (and now a corporation’s) Constitutional right to express his/her support for a candidate by making a donation against the undemocratic tendency for money to buy influence. Supporting a candidate through a donation is, after all, a form of free speech. Yet, empowering money means that our speech, in the end, is not truly equal. The two rights — the right to contribute and the right to enjoy a government free of money’s influence — are not easily reconcilable.

The political dilemma, in turn, taps the understandable hesitation of incumbents to alter rules that work to their own political advantage. It is politically appealing, of course — and a rite of the season — for politicians to publicly lash out against the role of money in campaigns and even to claim that they do not serve the “special interests” that financed their campaign. Of course, it would be politically idiotic for them not to play the game or to change it to make it possible for others to steal their job. The system, in fact, has a tendency to weed out such radicals.

Finally, the practical dilemma stands in the way of change: there are few viable alternatives to what we now have. The only imaginable option to private campaign contributions would seem to be public contributions, but given the fiscal situation of the government and the public’s lips reading “no new taxes”, that is not really much of an option. In fact, it is usually this non-solution — public funding of congressional campaigns — that gets raised and shot down in ritualistic fashion as a demonstration that we really do want change, but simply cannot do anything about it.

What would happen if we turned campaign contributions into anonymous donations? At first glance, at least, it seems that it would offer an escape to at least two of these intractable dilemmas. It would protect every individual’s right to contribute through free speech to a candidate and at the same time promote every individual‘s right to have a political system where officials are not beholden to the special interests bankrolling their campaign; and it would not require the use of public funds. It would not overcome the political dilemma, of course: getting incumbents to alter a system that has nourished them over the years would still be an obstacle. However, as an added bonus, a system of anonymous donations would probably reduce the amounts destined to political campaigns, freeing those funds to pursue purposes that are more worthwhile. Much of the impact depends on the reasons why people contribute to campaigns in the first place.

Campaign contributions reflect one or combination of two purposes: individuals or groups contribute to a campaign to register their support for a candidate’s bid for public office and/or they contribute to gain influence over the candidates actions once in office. Small individual contributions — those that accompany the purchase of a T-Shirt or bumper-sticker– are usually examples of an exclusive desire to help the candidate in his/her bid for office (though many do it simply for the T-shirt or bumper-sticker).

Larger, often PAC-affiliated and corporate contributions relate more towards the desire to gain influence on the part of the contributor than simply to aid the candidate’s quest for office. While the apologetic version merely suggests that contributors simply gain “access” to elected officials, logic suggests otherwise: why else would these corporations, attuned to investment logic, make such large contributions if they did not gain something in return? A contribution is, in a sense, an investment, and businesses tend to engage in that activity only if there is a return. In some cases, “special interests” donate to both parties, or donate to opposing candidates in the same race. In a vicious cycle then, competition among these large interests for influence – sorry, access — drives up the costs of campaigns. And the exorbitant costs associated with running an effective campaign make the larger contribution both more prevalent and more important to the candidate. Indeed, it is the prominence of such large contributions by major corporations and PACs that contributes to the persistent perception in this country that money buys political influence.

The direct and fundamental impact of transforming campaign contributions into anonymous donations would be to erode the ability of contributors to purchase political influence. In short, if the candidate does not know who his/her contributors are — as under anonymous donations — then he/she would be unable to provide that special access or properly target his/her official actions to the benefit of those special interests. Institutionalizing this degree of uncertainty might then force the public official to serve broader, more-encompassing interests, thereby diminishing the role of special interests and insulating our public officials from their seductive influence.

While eroding money’s political clout, a system of anonymous donations would at the same time uphold every individual’s basic constitutional right to express his or her support for a candidate in the form of a campaign contribution. As such, private donations would continue to be the foundation of the system as in the past, thereby protecting both free speech and scarce public funds.  Anonymous donations would just curb the special, reciprocal favors that currently occur.

Besides skirting around the philosophical and practical dilemmas, anonymous campaign contributions would also probably decrease the amounts of money going to the campaigns. The extent of the reduction, however, depends on the underlying reasons motivating the contributors and the impact of free-riding. To the extent that contributions are made in the spirit of simply aiding a candidate’s bid for office — the small donations mentioned earlier — then the amounts would not decline all that much. To the extent that contributions are made for the purpose of attaining some special favor, the decline in the amounts would be much greater. And it is precisely this type of campaign contribution that the average citizen (and the democratic ideal) prefers to see eliminated anyway.

Reducing the amounts involved in campaigns by making donations anonymous reflects the free-rider phenomenon. Since anonymous donations would eliminate the incentive based on special political favors to contribute, it would then become possible to enjoy the general benefits provided by the public official without sharing in the costs of the campaign (free-riding). If even a promise of a contribution from an organization or individual as a sign of solemn support for a candidate could not be confirmed by the candidate or his campaign staff, then no one would give for particularistic reasons — except to get a T-short or bumper-sticker. In the end, this would provide a more appropriate structure for political honesty, insulating candidates and allowing more independent action on their part. Indeed, we could all claim to have contributed large sums to any campaign (since this could not be verified by the candidate), demanding special access and favors in return.

This system would attack the whole problem of money and politics somewhat differently than does the current system characterized by campaign disclosure laws and contribution limits. It would turn campaign disclosure on its head while maintaining personal and corporate contribution limits and their tax-free status. Perhaps this is best since the current system has minimal impact on reducing the role of money or the amounts needed to mount a campaign, as noted.  One could argue, in fact, that the current laws have accomplished the exact opposite. The idea of campaign disclosure, for instance, making public the names of a candidate’s financial backers, can only check the influence of money if and when the public accesses the information and acts upon it. This is not only rare, but the degree of public outcry needed to overcome the advantages of money is formidable. A system of anonymous donations, by contrast, would work directly, not indirectly, on curtailing the political influence of campaign donations without relying on citizen awareness or public outrage.

At the administrative level, a system of anonymous donations would entail significant change, perhaps an administrative nightmare, thereby making it impractical. The major change would be the creation of some type of centralized campaign contribution clearinghouse that accepts campaign contributions on behalf of all candidates and then makes those funds available to their campaigns without divulging the origin of the donations. It is not that no one must know the names of those bankrolling the candidates — this is necessary to maintain contribution limits — merely that the candidates themselves would not have access to such information while in office. 

The new system would also demand greater oversight to ensure that candidates use only those funds channeled through the central agency and were not taking funds on the side. To do this we would have to proclaim all campaigns as public rather than private affairs, thereby altering their legal standing. It would even be possible, under this fictional system, to use a portion of all political donations to finance the administration of the program and pay for other election-related costs, thereby escaping the costs to the public. To a degree, this is what we all do at Tax time when we check off on the $1 donation to the presidential campaigns.

Other institutional features of the current system would have to change as well. Explicit, one-thousand-dollar-a-plate fund raisers, for example, would become a thing of the past, though few “normal” citizens would miss these great social events. Candidates could still entertain as they love to do, but would have to ask their guests to mail their contributions in on a voluntary basis afterwards to the central governmental campaign donation clearinghouse. Later, if asked, we could all say “the check is in the mail!”

Will Rogers, who also coined the term “The best Congress money can buy,” once urged us to take our campaign contribution and send it to the Red Cross, and let the election be decided on its merit. In the final analysis, turning campaign contributions into anonymous donations would place them more in the class of other types of donations that people make. Charitable donations to the Red Cross, the American Cancer Society or a Church are given for altruistic and utilitarian motives with little regard for special favors, access, or influence. Shouldn’t supporting political candidates and hence the democratic process proceed from no lesser principles?

Stephen D. Morris, 1996

Thoughts/ideas/rants/frustrations…on politics

This blog features the occasional editorial/opinion pieces that flow from awkward thoughts, bizarre ideas, and everyday frustrations with political views expressed mainly in the US. My more serious academic work, of course, focuses on Mexico and can be accessed through my website at http://www.mtsu.edu/politicalscience/faculty/sm.shtml.