Electoral Democracy: The Big Lie
Steve Farrell
June 24, 2002
The Constitutional debate over campaign finance "reform," is far from over. Good.
One of the many items for concern: Americans have been led to believe that we are a democracy, not a republic, and as such, reforms which act to check the free speech of rich men, rich corporation, rich unions, and rich special interest groups - at the door, as "unequal," "unfair," "unconstitutional," and "sinister," are just what the Founder's ordered.
Think again.
During the Constitutional Convention, Randolph observed the general object of the convention was:
". . . to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy; that some check therefore was to be sought for, against this tendency of our governments. . ."
That check was a republic. It's time to stop the big lie, and the disastrous follies that come with it.
Equal Right to Participate
Equality in the electoral process, as the Founder's understood it, was that every citizen might possess one vote and that no citizen might be excluded from the electoral process by reasons of faith or national origin.
Later, as the definition of citizen expanded from head of household and/or property owner to every adult, the underlying precept remained the same - the equal right of every citizen to participate in the political process.
This equal right to participate did not imply, however, that each individual would apply himself equally to the political process, nor that such a utopian idea was desirable. That would be against human nature, common sense and free speech.
For instance, to force an equality of political involvement, by equalizing the contribution of the energetic and intelligent with that of the inert and the idiotic, would be to foolishly inhibit, discourage and discard the efforts of your best citizens and exalt the efforts of your worst citizens: A goal of socialism.
The Founders, especially the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, the ever influential and respected John Adams, and Federalist writer Alexander Hamilton, were opposed to this concept.
The interesting and intricate system of representation they placed in the U.S. Constitution, which details who can be elected, how they are to be elected, and for what purpose they are to be elected, reveals one overarching theme: The qualifications, modes and expectations were different, not equal.
Inequality of Age
Members of the House had to be at least 25 years of age, members of the Senate at least 30 years of age, and the president at least 35 years of age.
Likewise, members of the House had to be U.S. citizens for at least seven years, members of the Senate for at least nine years, and the president for life.
The Constitutional Convention's sentiment, attached to these inequalities, was this: As the scope of a job enlarges, so does the potential for evil. The greater the responsibility, the more stringent the requirements and thus the smaller the group that could participate directly in that area of government. This was common sense! Maturity and personal acquaintance with the American system and culture were basic differences that separated legitimate candidates from dangerous ones.
Were all citizens equal in their opportunity to participate directly in the government as candidates? The answer is NO!
Inequality of Expectations
In both Madison's "Notes on the Constitutional Convention" and "The Federalist Papers" the expectations concerning the character, learning and abilities of the candidates to these same three offices were described in sharply different terms.
The future members of the House were predicted to be turbulent, ambitious, less learned than Senators, immature and ruled by passion and faction. The Founders didn't want this type of character, but they understood from history that the more democratic nature of the House would, as a general rule, encourage this type of behavior.
Members of the Senate, on the other hand, were expected to be senior statesmen, scholars and, believe it or not, rich men.
Future presidents were predicted to be great communicators capable of viewing the nation and the world in sweeps, with superior skill and intellect and established moral integrity - in short, a cut above the rest.
Were these various candidates for office expected to be equal in character and ability? NO!
Inequality of Roles and Powers
The Founders assigned roles to each area of government that recognized differences in each political office and differences in Society - differences to be protected, not homogenized, by a complex system of representative government.
Generally:
Each had different constituents. Each had different terms in office. Each had different powers. One legislated law, one enforced law, and one judged the law. They were, by design, distinct and separate (though they shared some powers).
In one sense they were equal: equal to try to influence the law. In another sense they were unequal, for each branch could only operate within the confines of its delegated powers.
Were their roles and their legal opportunities to influence the law equal? NO!
Inequality in the House of Representatives
Contribution caps operate on the premise that each individual, in terms of representation, is a mathematical equal. But we are a republic, not a democracy, and republics are far more complex and ingenious than that. The idea was to promote a vigorous competition of ideas from competing power centers, not give every person, or every group an exactly equal influence.
While the Constitution provided a mathematical rule as to how many representatives would be awarded to each state, drawing district lines was not done (originally) by an exact mathematical formula, nor is it today.
Historically, district lines were drawn, based upon a variety of considerations such as: "Geography, demography, electoral convenience, economic and social cohesions or divergencies among particular local groups, communications, the practical effects of political institutions like the lobby and the city machine, ancient traditions and ties of settled usage, respect for proven incumbents of long experience and senior status, mathematical mechanics, censuses compiling relevant data, and a host of others." (Baker v. Carr, US 1962)
Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, added, "[Equality] respective of population" was only one of many considerations, "others, forsooth, more appealing."
Near the top of the list was urban-rural conflict. Typically, both on the national and, especially, on the state level, sparsely populated rural districts received the same single vote in congressional proceedings as densely populated city districts. Under such an arrangement, the rural lifestyle (which Jefferson called the moral backbone of our country) was equally protected, even though its representation was a numerical inequality, and an apparent injustice to city dwellers.
The battle over this aspect of republicanism continues today, as political groups battle to redraw district lines along racial, political and economic lines. But the main thing they are all looking for is group representation, which is part of what a republic is supposed to do.
Every person cannot vote. Every interest, class and culture is not the same. And since government cannot be administered by a mob of 260 million individuals (for a variety of reasons), republican government deals in sweeps, which try to give all individuals and classes of individuals access to the debate through the inexact science of representation.
In this sense, purely private lobbying (not government subsidized lobbying, which distorts the political picture by artificially propping up isolated, extremist interests), from corporations, associations, unions, watchdog groups, ethnic organizations and churches, has a legitimate place in helping bring to the attention of lawmakers, and citizens alike, a healthy medley of interests. In Madison's view, nothing could be finer. The more competing forces, he argued, the harder it is for forces to combine all governmental powers into one head and produce an absolute tyranny.
What more, the individual who belongs to associations of like minded individuals, has a much greater sense of ownership in the affairs of state, is more eager to participate and self-educate; whereas, disenfranchise the same people via campaign finance laws, and the opposite effect is likely, political withdrawal is predictable, and the domination of the political debate by a very few voices is inevitable.
Think about it.
Inequality in the Senate
The last example we will consider of the rejection of absolute mathematical equality by the Founders is the U.S. Senate.
The chief excuse, often cited, for dollar amount caps on individual, or other donations is the desire to prevent the (evil) rich from obtaining an undemocratic/unequal advantage in the political process.
But think about this:
Let's suppose we kept that law in place and also equalized and limited to soft contributions (those funds used not to say "Vote For Bob," but to debate issues).
That done, let's ask ourselves if the rich, as a class, are a majority or minority of society.
They are a minority.
Then in theory, if the government was successful in preventing the rich from levying the influence they desire (even though they likely have a higher stake in preserving economic and political order than does the average citizen), wouldn't this trivialize the political influence of the prosperous?
The answer is yes.
Did the Founders want this? NO! This is one of the reasons they gave us the Senate.
The Senate, as already alluded to, was, prior to 1913, elected by the state legislatures. The intent was that the Senate would be a check on several groups (especially a check against the hegemony of the federal government over the states and the hegemony of large states over small states). It was also designed to be a vital check and a buffer zone in favor of the interests of private property, commerce and the rich against the covetousness of the less prosperous classes - whose interests would manifest themselves, in time, in the U.S. House.
Sometimes we forget that the president, the Senate and the House each represented three different types of government: the president, the government of kings; the Senate, the government of the rich and noblemen; the House, the government of the people. Any one of these by itself was a prescription for tyranny. Our republic, under the Constitution, solved this problem by striking a safe and inspired balance between the three.
Therefore, contrary to the spirit and letter of campaign finance laws, which make it a sin for the rich, for industrialists and for mammoth corporations to protect their interests, the Founders established the U.S. Senate to do that very thing.
Not only should campaign finance laws be without caps for private citizens and corporations, but the election to the Senate should be once again conducted by state legislatures rather than by the people, so that the interests of the states, the prosperous, and commerce will again find representation in one branch of Congress. Without it, socialism, which pure democracy produces, is thrust into the system.
We were forewarned on this issue by our Founding Fathers 213 years ago. Elbridge Gerry, arguing during the Constitutional Convention against the direct election of U.S. senators by the people, warned:
"The people have two great interests, the landed interest, and the commercial, including the stockholders. To draw both branches from the people will leave no security to the latter interest; the people being chiefly composed of the landed interest, and erroneously supposing that the other interests are adverse to it [that is, they tend to embrace the Marxist notion that the rich despise and exploit them]."
Madison also understood that pure democratic tendencies produced socialism and that special access for the rich to one branch of Congress was a check against this.
Said he: "No agrarian [socialist] attempts have yet been made in this country; but symptoms of a leveling spirit ... have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarter to give notice of the future danger."
The cure? Republican government, with one of its chief features the statesmen of the U.S. Senate, more attached to "wisdom, virtue ... and justice" than the democratic House. Remember this too: Senators got elected, under our Founder's Constitution, not by glitzy expensive campaigns, but by proving themselves over a course of years among their fellows in the state legislatures - a rather inexpensive electoral process. There's real reform!
Doctors of Absolute Equality
Those doctors of absolute equality today, who would try to equalize the political output of every American, display loyalty - whether or not they realize it - to socialism, not to American liberty.
It would be better that they rediscover that America's Founders gave us a Constitution that produced an equal right to participate, not a demand or expectation that we participate equally.
The rich, the prosperous and the corporation, like any other person or group, have an equal right to participate as their interests, inclinations, abilities and finances permit them.
To limit the contribution of a class of people who have learned the value of hard work, who have learned how to lead, and who have learned how to save and to exalt the output of those who have not is to turn our backs on the American dream of liberty and to embrace the European vision of socialism.
Contact Steve at cyours76@yahoo.com