Congressional Collusion

“You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave.”

Hotel California - The Eagles

Collusion is defined in my dictionary as a secret understanding to appear as adversaries though in agreement prejudicial to another. Blacks Law dictionary goes into greater detail with a description of collusive action: An action not founded upon an actual controversy between the parties to it, but brought for the purpose of securing a determination of a point of law for the gratification of curiosity or to settle rights of third persons not parties (to the action). Such actions will not be entertained for the courts will only decide “cases or controversies”. It implies the existence of a fraud of some kind....

The fundamental premise of my critiques of the electoral system of the United States is that the system is a fraud conceived and sustained by the collusion of political pseudo-factions in control of the institutions of the State. The third party being defrauded - the people of the United States - have been substantially deprived of effective means of redress before the usual institutions.

The fact the U. S. Supreme Court is currently considering the BCRA (McCain- Feingold) is evidence. The Court is being defrauded as are the people. If the Court were enlightened, it would strike down the entire campaign finance regime of the last thirty-odd years and cite the Executive and Legislative branches for contempt.

In my previous article, 'Getting My Wish...' , I charged that:

The current regime in its BICRA incarnation is designed to keep the elite who finance federal candidates toeing the parties line. The whole existing campaign financing scheme is a subversive political activities control regime to maintain the bipartisan political status quo. These people, should they ever peacefully 'revolt', have the means to mobilize a popular discontent which could, if the elections were fairly administered, sweep out an incumbent President, one-third of the Senate, and possibly the entire House of Representatives in one election! Such an event would obviously have more historical significance than the fall of the Soviet Union. The present system is designed NOT to deter so-called 'Fat Cats' or 'special wealth interest' from corrupting the government; it to keep the elite in line and their money milk flowing to the political status quo. It's the same game as the open ballot of the 19th century applied to the wealthy who finance the campaign extravaganza of the status quo.

This allegation is specifically directed at campaign finance control. But the broader case extends across the whole panorama of the American political system.

In support of my contention I offer the work of several scholars who provide evidence, but do not reach, or attempt to reach, the conclusion which the totality of their works clearly supports.

Let us first turn to a forthcoming book from the Campaign Finance Institute ( www.cfinst.org <http://www.cfinst.org/> ).

Chapter 8, The Stagnation of Congressional Elections by James E. Campbell, discusses why in the overwheming majority of districts in the 2002 elections, "there was never any real question that the election would leave the status quo intact". Campbell's conclusion is convincing, as far as it goes. He demonstrates that House incumbents are nearly invincible because they almost always have better financed campaigns than their challengers. He considers the provisions of the new BCRA law and concludes that on balance that it will make incumbents even more immune to challenge.

But defenders of the campaign finance control regime claim they are only trying to prevent "corruption or the appearance of corruption". Under this rationale, it appears the U. S. Supreme will overlook and, in fact, legitimize any anti-competitive effects resulting from the collusion of the incumbents parties. Campbell states, " Elections as instruments of popular control of the government should permit citizens to redirect the government in significant ways, but this is becoming less the case for House elections." Campbell conclusion is unassailable: "Without competition, elections become meaningless rituals."

Campbell considers and dismisses other possible causes of incumbent invincibility such as redistricting. He compares the re-election rates of House incumbents before the mid-1960s and afterward and can see no reason why redistricting failed to help incumbents in the first part of the twentieth century, but might have done so in the later half.

My thesis on this subject is that scholars have thus far failed to look at what I call representational resolution. The details of this thesis will appear elsewhere later. Nevertheless, the fact that campaign finance control did butress incumbents does not rule out that other factors have the same effect as well. Therefore, any attempt to devise reform which would restore competitive representation should address factors other than campaign finance control.

More direct to my point that the campaign finance regime is a 'subversive political activities control' scheme is supported by the so-called "Millionaires' Amendment" in BCRA. This subject is discussed by Jennifer Steen in Chapter 9 of the book. Steen's discussion supports my charge that the campaign finace scheme is designed to supress defectors from the wealthy elite challenging the incumbemt status quo. The whole thrust is "Our way or the highway to federal prision."

Steen tenatively suggest that the Millionaires' Amendment might "have a significant effect on candidate emergence." Which is academic speak for a what I would call a Spartacus candidate - a JFK type figure - with a libertarian agenda would be the status quo's worst nightmare and all conceivable tools for the abortion of such a candidacy must be made ready. I remain convinced that the Perot candidacy was a faux Spartacus candidacy improvisation which attempted to immunize the voters against the real thing. The Millionaires' Amendment is an institutional bulwark against a future emergent Spartacus-type candidate. In short, it could blow the collusion apart. The wealthy are about to become a class of political indentured servants. To paraphrase the Eagles, "Any wealthy would-be Spartacus can check out any time he wants, but he can never leave."

These scholars have laid out many essential pieces of the puzzle on the table. I am simply suggesting the pattern they reveal and suggest you take a look for yourself..

to be continued...

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws