The big political news in New York City is the federal charges against State Sen. Malcolm Smith and others for bribery. However most of what the NY Times has to say about the charges seem to be about internal Republican party scheming. For instance, the Times tells us...
Smith, a Democrat, wanted "to get his name on the ballot for mayor as a Republican, which would require approval of a majority of the party’s leadership in the city."
the charges contend that he made payments to Mr. Halloran in exchange for the councilman’s assistance in setting up meetings with Republican leaders as part of an effort to get on the ballot
and
Mr. Smith, according to the complaint, agreed with the cooperating witness and the undercover F.B.I. agent, who was masquerading as a wealthy real estate developer, to pay off leaders of Republican county committees in New York’s five boroughs. The bribes were to be paid to obtain specific certificates authorizing him to run for mayor as a Republican even though he was a registered Democrat.
Readers of my past diaries (such as
"Real Democracy and Big Money" and
"Citizens United: The Sequel?" ) will know the corrupting and undemocratic effects of money in politics is a serious concern of mine. But in this case I couldn't help wondering: why - out of all the political mischief in this country - are they focused on the internal nomination process of a particular party? I wouldn't want to join or vote for a party that picked its nominees based on which candidate gave the most money to the party or to which candidate had the biggest nose - but is it the government's job to tell a party it can't do that? And, if so, is it a higher priority than recent efforts to prevent citizens from voting or using gerrymandering to distort the voters' will?
Let me be clear. The NY Times article suggested these politicians were accused of other corrupt actions - but was generally vague about any specific crimes. There was one exception. It states:
Ms. Jasmin wanted an ownership interest in a company she believed was involved in a real estate deal, the complaint says, and Mr. Smith promised to steer $500,000 in state transportation funds to that project.
In this case, the corruption involves government funds - unquestionably a matter which requires prosecution. However, this is not what most of the article focuses on and it would seem not what most of the prosecution focuses on.
In the 2012 election, adding up all the votes for Democratic Congressional candidates in every Congressional district in the nation and adding up all the votes in every district for Republicans, we find that nationwide Democrats received significantly more votes than Republicans. Yet, as a result of gerrymandering, the majority of seats in the House of Representatives went to Republicans. This isn't merely a matter of not exactly proportional representation. It means although Democrats hold the White House and the Senate, the Republican majority in the House can block legislation desired by a majority of Americans - who voted for Democrats in hopes that party would pass laws that Republicans would not. Our national government has been sabotaged and twisted by efforts to misrepresent the will of the majority. Yet, what the Obama administration and the media is more concerned about is whether one of the names offered to voters on the NYC ballot this year got that party's nomination by paying people off. Perhaps, it would be better if we had some real investigative journalism in this country - and by that means the media told the voters, "Do you want to vote for a party that sells its nominations to the highest bidder? If so, these are the guys to vote fore!"
Then the FBI could concentrate on those responsible for fixing and distorting the actual citizen's voting.
Years ago, I lived in a city run by a Democratic political machine - like old Chicago. A nearby city was run by a Republican machine. I knew someone who grew up in the GOP city and when he turned 18 knew it was in his best interest to register as a Republican. When he moved to the Democratic city, he knew to register as a Democrat. It was of interest to know the Democratic machine town was a state capital - and even when the governor was a Republican there was no challenge to the machine politics. Similarly, it has been said that Richard Nixon might have won the 1960 presidential election if it weren't for the vote fixing by the Democratic machine in Chicago. Nixon wasn't a live and let live kind of guy. But when Nixon became president in 1969, there was no corruption prosecutions of Chicago's machine.
Fixing elections just doesn't seem to be the same priority for prosecution. Although Obama proposed setting up a commission [often a way to do nothing] to look into hours-long waiting lines to vote, that and other efforts to discourage voters doesn't seem to be much of a priority either.
And there's certainly no rush by our government to reverse the effects of the Citizens United case - letting more big money into our electoral system.