Democracy rounded down

Unfortunately, politics is money, and money is power. This is a natural truth, but as I understand, every man woman and child living in a “natural” state, able to sustain themselves on their own land, was only feasible to about the 1890’s. This is why we have government, economic policy, and the social contract, so we can more effectively (and less deviously) redistribute wealth and power where needed without resorting to paralegal gangs and cartels.

In Texas, we live in a Republic (twin Republics, actually) and this means that we, the people, hand over a portion of our personal power (rights and money) to that Republic, and in return, it provides more than we could have secured with what we had foregone. We are entrusting our representatives with ensuring that our taxes are worthwhile to us individually. Unfortunately, American party politics has a natural tendency toward the bicameral, and not just at the federal level. Politics, by its nature, is like a giant game of Red Rover, players on opposite ends of the same team having nothing in common; often the only relation of two opposites is for the common purpose of survival. People cannot vote their conscious, they are instead forced to vote for a handful of issues, or possibly even simply a party name and platform. How does someone whose two biggest personal issues cross platforms vote? They must eschew some of their political voice, and that silence is a terrible thing.

The scramble for political limelight does not serve the people of Texas, it serves the policymakers and those who pay for their agenda. Trickle down to the constituents and effective policy is a collateral concern in shortsighted party politics, and this shortsightedness comes from the limited terms that candidates endure. People are shortsighted - it’s part of their nature, that thing government is designed to overcome.

The incumbent in any local election has a huge advantage, usually for little more reason than name recognition at the polls and a favorable party name. This name recognition, more often than not, is due to extra-district campaign contribution. In the 2006 state election, a full third of the $158 million raised by all districts was from a list of 141 donors, and 40% of total contributions coming from organizations, not individuals. I simply don’t understand why we are allowed to vote twice, once with our wallet, and once at the polls, and why organizations, committees, and lobbies have such a huge say in our democracy.

Lobbying is often joked to be “legal bribery,” and it’s certainly not the fault of the lobbyists that what they are doing is essential graft - they’re behaving rationally and making a career of political maneuver just like anyone would. Unfortunately, we don’t live in Machiavellian Italy, and money and soft power should simply not be mixed with policy. In the endgame, a state income tax voluntary “political contribution pool,” as has been started with the Presidential elections, would be ideal.

Campaign finance reform has been a hot issue after recent national elections, but I hope we’ve just hit the tip of the iceberg. I hope that, with a progressive attitude (perhaps rebrand it as “down home know-how“ or something?), we can discover that laissez-faire fundraising hurts political competition more than it helps - I know Libertarians would hate to cross themselves in agreeing with that sentiment, but they won’t be able to find a toehold in Texas policy any other way.