Who knew the best political columns were in the Washington Post's Business section? I just read Steven Pearlstein's column from Sunday, "Forget super PACs: A modest proposal for legalized bribery". Great stuff.
It took me a while to figure out this was parody, it sounds so like the rationale presented by the Business-Centric, Galtian, wing of the Republican party. You know, the ones who think liberty and freedom begin and end with Free Enterprise, and that Free Enterprise is such a great thing it should be subsidized heavily in the tax code, allowed free reign over natural and public health resources, and protected at all costs by Justices of the Peace such as Clarence Thomas.
Pearlstein addresses our post-Citizens' United political campaigns:
Thanks to Kennedy and his colleagues, the 1% has funneled tens of millions of dollars to the new campaign “super PACs,” those independent groups run by former campaign aides that are prohibited from “coordinating” their efforts with the official campaigns (wink, wink). Already, super-PAC fundraising and spending has exceeded that of the campaigns. By the time the 2012 election cycle is finished, don’t be surprised if super-PAC spending reaches into the billions.
and thinks it doesn't go quite far enough in giving a true voice to that truest of free voices, Money.
So, I propose that we finally give up the charade that we are not “buying” elections and, in fact, do exactly that — mount an all-out political and legal challenge to laws preventing us from buying votes directly.
As you know, bribing voters is an honored tradition in this country, dating to the early days of the Republic. From the Federalist Papers it’s clear that the practice was known to the Framers; if they had found it incompatible with democracy they surely would have banned it in the constitution.
Pearlstein outlines how this modest proposal will wind its way through our courts. As a proud Virginian, I appreciated his hat-tip to our beloved Attorney General Ken Cuccnelli (famous for spending precious time and money to sue the Obama administration over Health Care Reform, harrassing climate scientists by subpoenaing their e-mails, and reminding Virginia's Colleges and Universities that its really okay to discriminate against gay people):
I’m pretty sure Ted Olson would tell us that our best bet is to initiate a challenge to the outdated anti-bribery laws in Texas, Mississippi or Louisiana, so we can get the case before the Fifth Circuit. Chief Justice Edith Jones and her colleagues are as sympathetic to arguments about original intent as they are toward a rigorous “law and economics” analysis. Business groups will be quick to file amicus briefs. And you can be sure that Ken Cuccinelli and other attorneys general will weigh in with briefs arguing that if the government is allowed to prevent people from selling votes, what’s to stop it from preventing people from selling used pickups, those old issues of National Geographic sitting in the basement or even automatic weapons?
I wonder how things really would be different if we had just straight-forward money for votes? Are we that far off? This was a great read and so glad that the Business section of the Post provided space for this column, since I don't see much of this political clarity in the Outlook and op-ed pieces much.