Home
In this issue
Nov. 6, 2009
Rabbi Berel Wein: Choosing to hear
JWisdom.com Zero to 1/60th: How to Empower An Hour with Gavriel Aryeh Sande (7 minutes)
Caroline B. Glick The mullahs' big week
Suzanne Fields A Fallen Wall for Fallen Man
Nov. 5, 2009
The Kosher Gourmet: Three scrumptious -- but simple -- butternut squash dishes
JWisdom.com Hidden Hints: Unlocking Faith & Prayer with Rabbi Jay Yaacov Schwartz (10 minutes)
Nov. 4, 2009
Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger: Should prayers be covered?
JWisdom.com When God played peacemaker With Rabbi Sroy Levitansky (5 minutes)
Nov. 3, 2009
Martin Peretz: Beware, Barack. Beware, Rahm. Beware, Axelrod
JWisdom.com Are you are closet idolater? With Sara Yoheved Rigler (10 minutes)
Nov. 2, 2009
Paul Greenberg: The Holocaust is now on Facebook
JWisdom.com Abraham's Strange Change With Rabbi Yitzchok Fingerer (5 minutes)
Oct. 30, 2009
Rabbi David Aaron: Secret to Immortality
Caroline B. Glick Silencing dissent in America
Oct. 29, 2009
Lini S. Kadaba: Do tactics avert flu or reduce humanity?
JWisdom.com We Must Revamp our Religious Vocabulary With Gavriel Aryeh Sanders ( 10 minutes)
Oct. 28, 2009
Rabbi Yonason Goldson: Atheists in Bubbleland
JWisdom.com Why what we wear impacts who we are With Rabbis Mordechai Becher, Menachem Golberger and Aliza Bulow ( 10 minutes)
Oct. 27, 2009
Paul Greenberg: The United Nations Is Outraged Again, Or: Department of Mideast Static
JWisdom.com The Science of Love With Rabbi Jonathan Rietti ( 7 minutes)
Oct. 26, 2009
The Jewish Ethicist by Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir: Damaging disclosures with a twist
JWisdom.com Wisdom and Wonks With Rabbi Eytan Feiner ( 7 minutes)
Oct. 23, 2009
Rabbi David Aaron: Are you ready for the ultimate pleasure?
JWisdom.com Watermark and oneness with Rabbi Sroy Levitansky ( 4 minutes)
Caroline B. Glick Stop using limited powers in a way that expands our enemies' advantages over us
Oct. 22, 2009
Steven Emerson: Terror Cases Share Desire to Kill Americans
JWisdom.com No More More Family Fights --- Really? By Sarah Chana Radcliffe ( 5 minutes)
Oct. 21, 2009
Tonya Alanez: Holocaust denier sues survivor, calling Auschwitz memoir 'vicious lies'
JWisdom.com Meditating Jewishly: A Panacea for Success by Sarah Yoheved Rigler ( 7 minutes)
Oct. 20, 2009
Dennis Prager: Obama and Dalai Lama: Why Israel Worries about U.S. President
JWisdom.com Abraham was not religious By Rabbi Yitzchok Fingerer ( 6 minutes)
Oct. 19, 2009
JWisdom.comWhy Good People Do Bad Things By Rabbi Eytan Feiner ( 7 minutes)
Oct. 16, 2009
Rabbi Yonason Goldson: The Perfect Number
JWisdom.com Hearing Voices By Rabbi Sroy Levitansky ( 5 minutes)
Caroline B. Glick How Turkey was lost
Oct. 15, 2009
Jeff Jacoby: Peace vs. the 'peace process'
JWisdom.com: Former MTV producer and stand-up comedian Rabbi Lawrence Hajioff: Taming a Control Freak (A VERY fast 15 minutes)
Oct. 29, 2003
Mortimer B. Zuckerman: Graffiti On History's Walls (MUST-READ!)

Jewish World Review Sept. 13, 2006 / 20 Elul, 5766

It's Broken...But Please Don't Fix It!

By Pat Sajak


Printer Friendly Version
Email this article

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | This is the time of year when we hear a lot about election reform. You know the mantra: special interests, too much money in politics, negative ads, public financing, etc. The problem with election reform is the same one inherent in most tax reform; namely, every time either system gets reformed, it gets worse. Each "simplification" of the tax code creates a few hundred more indecipherable pages of regulations, and each move to "clean up" politics makes our system more unwieldy and unresponsive.


The whole move to limit campaign contributions has had at least three unintended consequences (unintended, but predictable). First, it's made money-raising the full time job of most of our politicians. A member of the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, must run every two years, and, with the smaller donation limit, he must never stop trolling for cash. Second, it's more difficult than ever to unseat an incumbent. What with built-in name recognition and a challenger's daunting task of raising money in small increments, it's no wonder most reform legislation is referred to by cynical insiders as "Incumbent Protection Acts" . And that leads to the third consequence of the latest wave of reforms, and that's the rise of the Rich Guys in politics. Since there's no limit to spending your own money, we're rapidly approaching the point where only the wealthy have a realistic shot at unseating an incumbent.


The election reform movement is based, it seems to me, on some faulty premises. Foremost among them is the notion that you can remove corruption in politics by limiting contributions. According to this logic, if I want to give a million dollars to Candidate A, it means I have a special hold on him which allows me to influence his votes on legislation which will benefit me. Of course, legislation that benefits me is not necessarily bad legislation, but that's another story. More to the point is this: if limits were lifted and full disclosure were required, my million dollars might not buy me very much, because voters and the press would be able to call into question any seemingly inappropriate legislation designed to benefit me at the expense of others.


The other faulty premise is that smaller donations protect us from influence-peddling. In fact, they exacerbate the problem. If that same Candidate A must rely on the support of, say, Teachers' Unions and the small, individual donations of their members, he is much more likely to support their agendas even if he disagrees with them. If he were to believe in a particular piece of school choice legislation, for example, might he not withhold his support to protect his contributor base? And, if so, why is it more desirable to be beholden to a group representing a special interest than an individual constituent? Why is that form of "corruption" any more desirable than building the highway close to Mr. Jones's store because he made a big contribution?


For some, public financing is the panacea. So, under that plan, I would be told that I, as a taxpayer, must underwrite any qualifying candidate regardless of how distasteful I find his views. And how, exactly, does this "clean up" politics? Just picture it: there's a trough of cash sitting there for anyone who fancies himself a politician. No money to raise. No need to enunciate a platform which would attract contributors. Just taxpayer dollars to play with. Goodbye, two-party system.


How about the hand-wringing over negative advertising? Surely, that problem can be fixed. Well, how? Would this mean no one would be able to criticize any one else's positions? It's much easier to decry negativity in political advertising than it is to specifically define what we're trying to eliminate. Where's the line that can't be crossed, and who draws it?


Some reformers advocate the elimination of the 30-second commercial. Why? What will happen in one minute or two minutes or five or ten that will bring out the best in candidates? Will voters really be better informed by a 30-minute outline of a candidate's positions if no one is watching?


"Reform" is a misleading word. It implies not just a repair but a move to an idealized perfection. Our electoral system may need some reworking, but beware of the reformers who think they can bring purity to an impure enterprise.


There's a lot of money in election-year politics, but, as others have pointed out, we spend more on potato chips than on election campaigns. The answer is not to try to take money out of politics. That is not only impossible, it may not even be desirable. The real answer is total, absolute disclosure. Limits are arbitrary and can lead down dark and unforeseen roads. Let's shine a bright light on the money and its sources. That, in the end, is the best protection against corruption in our political system.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Comment on Pat Sajak's column by clicking here.

JWR contributor Pat Sajak is the recipient of three Emmys, a Peoples’ Choice Award and a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. He's currently the host of Wheel of Fortune.



Archives

© 2006, Pat Sajak

Insight (Our Columnists)

 Arnold Ahlert
 Mitch Albom
 Michael Barone
  Dave Barry
 Tony Blankley
 Andy Borowitz
 David Broder
 Stratfor Briefing
 Mona Charen
 Linda Chavez
 Ann Coulter
 Greg Crosby
 Larry Elder
 Suzanne Fields
 John Fund
 Frank J. Gaffney
 Lloyd Garver
 Jonah Goldberg
 Julia Gorin
 Jonathan Gurwitz
 Paul Greenberg
 Lewis Grossberger
 Victor Davis Hanson
 Betsy Hart
 Nat Hentoff
 David Horowitz
 Laura Ingraham
 Cheri Jacobus
Jeff Jacoby
 Paul Johnson
 Jack Kelly
 Ed Koch
 Ch. Krauthammer
 Michael Ledeen
 John Leo
 David Limbaugh
 Kathryn Lopez
 Rich Lowry
 Michelle Malkin
 Jackie Mason
 Dick Morris
 Bill O'Reilly
 Jim Mullen
 Clarence Page
 Kathleen Parker
 Dennis Prager
 Wesley Pruden
 Tom Purcell
 Jonathan Rauch
 Celia Rivenbark
 Robert Robb
 Cokie & Steve Roberts
 Pat Sajak
 Debra J. Saunders
 Culture Shlock
 Roger Simon
 Michael Smerconish
 Thomas Sowell
 Mark Steyn
 John Stossel
 Cal Thomas
 Bob Tyrrell
 Diana West
 Dave Weinbaum
 George Will
 Walter Williams
 Byron York
 Mort Zuckerman

'Toons
 Robert Arial
 Chuck Asay
 Baloo
 Chip Bok
 Dry Bones
  Lisa Benson
 John Branch
 Gary Brookins
 John Cole
 J. D. Crowe
 John Deering
 Brian Duffy
 Everything's Relative
 Mallard Fillmore
 Jake Fuller
 Bob Gorrel
 Joe Heller
 David Hitch
 Jerry Holber
 Steve Kelley
 Jeff Koterba
 Dick Locher
 Chan Lowe
 Ranan R. Lurie
 Jimmy Margulies
 Rick McKee
 Michael Ramirez
 Kevin Siers
 Jeff Stahler
 Ed Stein
 Danna Summers
 John Trever
 Gary Varvel
 Kirk Walters

Lifestyles
 How 2
 Lori Borgman
 The Savvy Consumer
 Elder matters
 Fixit
 Dr. Peter Gott
 GET A JOB! by Marty Nemko
 Richard Lederer
 Tech Maven
 Every Monday Matters
 Nutrition Myths
 Bookmark These
 Bruce Williams
 How Stuff Works