In my recent pseudo poem, Midnight Rings A Heavy Bell, I bemoaned the end of democracy because of the Walker loss. I was called out on it. After all, it was an election. The vote was about the same as the original Walker election. What's the big deal? Wisconsin had an open election and the people spoke. Where's the loss of democracy in that.
This next information, I admit, I stole from The Rachel Maddow Show. But these are facts, not her opinions. California, which held a primary election on the same day as Wisconsin. They had a proposition on the ballot that would have raised the cigarette tax by a dollar, with the money going to fund cancer research. California has the second lowest smoking rate in the country (only Utah is lower), and some of the lowest current cigarette taxes in the country. They weren't closing their budget gap. They weren't creating a slush fund for pet projects, or even education. They were trying to help find a cure to one of mankind's greatest medical scourges - cancer.
This measure was so popular, that in March it polled 67 to 30 in favor of passing. That's right. A two to one margin. What in politics is called a no-brainer, a slam dunk, something where all the angels are lining up.
Then came the commercials and the money. Big Tobacco and others in that class spent 50 million dollars to defeat this proposition. This is more than was spent in the Walker race. It was the most money spent on any contest . They completely drowned out the opposition. And the proposition narrowly lost.
That's right. Money walked. Negative advertising works. How does democracy work when it can be led by the nose like that. It's like watching the New York Yankees play a Little League team. Could the Little League team win? Maybe. Maybe once every thousand games they might. But you can't watch this and call it a real or fair ball game. Nor can you watch our elections any more and call them true democracy.
I wish the avalanche of money didn't work. But it does. I wish negative ads didn't influence people. But they do. And now that big money rules all, what is the first thing Republican led states try to do? Eliminate unions, one of the few big sources of money left to the Democrats.
I only wish it wasn't true. Technically, democracy still exists. But did you think it would disappear by an outright ban. no. It will dance on as a shadow puppet, the strings controlled by forces far beyond our dwindling control.
Welcome to the post Citizens United world. Welcome to Democracy Puppet Theater.
I would like to address the "cancer tax" issue. I think you best can understand my response by knowing that I am an EX smoker. My father died from complications of lung cancer due to many years of cigarette smoking. Most of the people who care about cigarette tax are smokers. California has some of the most restrictive anti-smoking laws on the books.As cited by you, they also has the second lowest lowest smoking rate in the country. Non-smokers should feel pretty protected. The money goes to "cancer research"? That is a very broad classification. All cancer? Targeted types of cancer? Or LUNG cancer? Lung cancer due to smoking is just that...DUE TO smoking. I believe that non-smokers did not have any real interest in this proposition. Smokers are the ones who would vote it down. They feel targeted and that their rights are being fringed upon. That is why that proposition failed. I know big money talks. But, I think it would have had a better chance if that tax would have gone to smoking cessation. Seriously, I would have voted it down also.
ReplyDeleteI am dubious of the money actually going to cancer research, especially in a cash strapped state. we have been taken many times by both parties on deals like this. That may have influenced the vote.
ReplyDeleteWhat about a 90 day campaign season For one thing it would make our congressman work more. Now with only a 2 year term they spend most of their time trying to get re-elected.
Then both of you would have been in the 30% against it to begin with. My concern is with those who changed their minds after being deluged by the one well-moneyed side. And I don't tthink the number of days will effect the flood of money. It will just further reduce the public's ability to get to know underdog candidates and increase the advantage of the incumbent and most well-financed candidate.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete