Let’s
talk about Mike Bloomberg and the corrupting influence of money in
politics. His campaign has been treated as largely benign because he’s
using his money transparently rather than making secret buy-offs with
shady figures and foreign hackers. His corruption seems less dangerous
because it’s happening right in front of us. But it is corruption in the
formal sense of the term—he’s eroding an institution (elections) with
his wealth for personal gain.
Consider the effects of splashing a billion dollars into a campaign just several weeks old.
1) He bought a lot of the best talent.
2) He bought name recognition and created a TV “Mike” that is far more personable, kind, and competent than the actual man who finally appeared on a debate stage a week ago. And he’s spending his money to try to erase the memory of that flesh-and-blood Bloomberg who bombed so spectacularly on the debate stage.
3) His ad blitz has both squeezed out rivals in certain markets as well as driven ad prices up. It is a classic technique in business to drive out the competition.
4) Bloomberg has gotten a lot of Democratic Party support—second only to Joe Biden, in fact. Why would that be? Because Bloomberg has been playing a long game as a candidate benefactor. And for his largesse, he expects reciprocity. He even admitted it last night. This transcription comes from the Washington Post:
Bloomberg is a prickly, arrogant billionaire who has spent decades dictating how things will be. He has no interest in collaboration or the slow, hard work of coalition-building that is the essence of the democratic process. He’s applying money at all the pressure points in the system and hoping to spring it open.
I don’t actually think he’s a bad guy and it seems he’s running for office out of a genuine sense of public service. But his money has insulated him from the opinions of regular folks. He has not been forced to listen to constituent wishes and is using his money to avoid doing so. His political views have been formed by the realities of the board room, and were they represented by a candidate with no money, would attract absolutely no support.
Fortunately, Bloomberg has had to face his rivals and the voters, and he’s very unlikely to win the nomination. But the backstops preventing a candidate from sidestepping the entire process of engaging voters and rivals are fewer and fewer. What if he had started running a year earlier, purchased a massive team in Iowa and NH? Could a candidate win by completely skipping campaigning and debating and just have staffers and surrogates do it amid a hail of TV ads and social media posts? No doubt Bloomberg wishes he could go back in time and see. It’s certainly not unthinkable.
You don’t need to be a Bernie Sanders loyalist to see that Bloomberg is the symptom of a wheezing democracy that has been slowly corrupted by the forces of wealth for decades. Bloomberg’s campaign won’t be the last time we see something like this—and in fact is likely just the trial run, beta version.
Consider the effects of splashing a billion dollars into a campaign just several weeks old.
1) He bought a lot of the best talent.
2) He bought name recognition and created a TV “Mike” that is far more personable, kind, and competent than the actual man who finally appeared on a debate stage a week ago. And he’s spending his money to try to erase the memory of that flesh-and-blood Bloomberg who bombed so spectacularly on the debate stage.
3) His ad blitz has both squeezed out rivals in certain markets as well as driven ad prices up. It is a classic technique in business to drive out the competition.
4) Bloomberg has gotten a lot of Democratic Party support—second only to Joe Biden, in fact. Why would that be? Because Bloomberg has been playing a long game as a candidate benefactor. And for his largesse, he expects reciprocity. He even admitted it last night. This transcription comes from the Washington Post:
“They talk about 40 Democrats. Twenty one of those are people that I spent a hundred million dollars to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in and put Nancy Pelosi in charge and gave the Congress the ability to control this president, I bough — I, I got them.”
Bloomberg is a prickly, arrogant billionaire who has spent decades dictating how things will be. He has no interest in collaboration or the slow, hard work of coalition-building that is the essence of the democratic process. He’s applying money at all the pressure points in the system and hoping to spring it open.
I don’t actually think he’s a bad guy and it seems he’s running for office out of a genuine sense of public service. But his money has insulated him from the opinions of regular folks. He has not been forced to listen to constituent wishes and is using his money to avoid doing so. His political views have been formed by the realities of the board room, and were they represented by a candidate with no money, would attract absolutely no support.
Fortunately, Bloomberg has had to face his rivals and the voters, and he’s very unlikely to win the nomination. But the backstops preventing a candidate from sidestepping the entire process of engaging voters and rivals are fewer and fewer. What if he had started running a year earlier, purchased a massive team in Iowa and NH? Could a candidate win by completely skipping campaigning and debating and just have staffers and surrogates do it amid a hail of TV ads and social media posts? No doubt Bloomberg wishes he could go back in time and see. It’s certainly not unthinkable.
You don’t need to be a Bernie Sanders loyalist to see that Bloomberg is the symptom of a wheezing democracy that has been slowly corrupted by the forces of wealth for decades. Bloomberg’s campaign won’t be the last time we see something like this—and in fact is likely just the trial run, beta version.
No comments:
Post a Comment