Investigative reporter Lee Fang has learned that incumbents of both major parties are ignoring ethics rules in order “to use government money for ads clearly designed to influence voters.”
Back in the 1990s, I was shocked to discover that the average incumbent congressperson spent more using the franking privilege, government funding of “official” newsletters to constituents, than the average challenger spent in his or her entire campaign. In this video age, they’ve upgraded their bragging to living color.
Here is a bipartisan couple from the many examples Fang discovered:
Democrat: A taxpayer-funded ad aired by the campaign of New York Representative Tom Suozzi, talks about how “Tom worked across party lines to convince the president” to do something about the border.
Republican: A taxpayer-funded ad aired by the campaign of Virginia Representative Jen Kiggans, in which she boasts about her track record on issues pertaining to veterans and the military.
Fang has identified at least nine other culprits and put together a YouTube video compiling some of these taxpayer-funded ads. Everyone sees these as campaign spots — or “campaign-style ads,” as Fang also puts it.
The ads even say (for example, in Wesley Hunt’s video) that they were “paid for with official funds” from the office of the congressman or with “official funds authorized by the House of Representatives.”
These “official funds” are not voluntary campaign contributions.
Congressmen, you’ve been caught.
So stop.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder and ChatGPT and Firefly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
Maybe not you, buddy, but the rest are even scared to open up and laugh. You know, that’s the first thing that got me about this place, that there wasn’t anybody laughing. I haven’t heard a real laugh since I came through that door, do you know that? Man, when you lose your laugh you lose your footing.
Ken Kesey, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1962), Chapter Five.
On September 17, 1787, the Constitution of the United States was signed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It should be noted, however, that the signatories did not thereby ratify their proposed new constitution for the union. The states had to ratify the document, which was done state by state. The document would not have passed enough states to take effect had not there been a promise to quickly pass a set of amendments, which became known as the Bill of Rights.
In 1849 on this same day in September, Harriet Tubman escaped to freedom in Philadelphia, but soon returned to Maryland to rescue her family. She made at least 13 trips into the slave-owning South to liberate more than 70 slaves before the Civil War — in which she served as a spy for the North.
Nevertheless, that giving is not always ostentatious. Sometimes it is surreptitious.
Or at least not ballyhooed.
Kamala Harris has taken up an old Democratic Party stalking point: soak the rich! Though she tries not to mention just how much money she and her fellow Biden Administration insiders have been giving to a few big corporations.
“Despite Harris’ rhetoric of fighting for the middle class,” writes Jack Salmon at Reason, “her policies have disproportionately benefited the wealthy and large corporations while leaving middle- and lower-income Americans behind. Far from soaking the rich, Harris’ legacy has been one of feeding them.”
Corporate subsidies have “exploded,” explains Mr. Salmon, going from a ten-year budget allocation of $1.2 trillion in 2021 to now surpassing $2 trillion.
Nearly doubled!
“The beneficiaries of this largesse are extremely concentrated,” Salmon notes, most of it going to “just 15 large corporations, seven of which are foreign.” Of course, a lot of this is under cover of “saving the planet” and fighting “climate change”: “Wind turbine manufacturers like General Electric, Vestas, and Siemens/Gamesa — who collectively produce 79 percent of all turbines — are among the biggest winners.”
Robbing from the few and giving to the many makes neither for good mathematics or a winning political strategy. Robbing from the many and giving to the few is what usually works. But if your appeal is to “the left,” you have to pretend to grab most from the super-rich few.
Your pals.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
L’homme doit être content, dit-on; mais de quoi?
Man ought to be content, it is said; but with what?
François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire), Pensées, Remarques, et Observations de Voltaire; ouvrage posthume (1802), p. 232.