Mother's Milk

"Money is the mother's milk of politics," said Jesse Unruh, once the powerful Speaker of the California State Assembly.

And he may be right. Certainly in New York City, the mayoralty of Michael Bloomberg would at least raise questions about the influence of money. In all three of his races for Mayor, Bloomberg chose to disdain the restrictions of the City's Campaign Finance Act, which limits expenditures for mayoral campaigns to $6,158,000. The Mayor spent over $100,000,000 in his campaign for a third term in 2009, and won the race, 51% to 46%, over Bill Thompson, who spent 1/16th what the Mayor spent.

One could guess soundly that if the Mayor had spent only $50,000,000, Thompson might have won the election; one could be certain that if the Mayor had spent the same amount as Thompson, the Mayor would have lost, Thompson would have won.

The reason the Mayor could ignore the Campaign Finance Act's restrictions on expenditures is that he was spending his own money, and the United States Supreme Court, in its wisdom, has found that there can be no limit imposed on the expenditure of one's own money in a political campaign.

This feature of the City's law, or any American city's law, is an invitation to multi-millionaires to jump into political races with their big bucks and blow ordinary citizens out of the water. You don't have to work your way up the political ladder, you don't have to have an army of friends who have come to recognize your leadership abilities, you don't even have to have demonstrated any understanding of political problems or possible solutions. You just have to have money. Money can buy you the political managers and ad writers that can transform you into the people's hero.

Linda McMahon of Connecticut, reputedly worth half a billion dollars, ran for the United States Senate in 2010. She spent $50,000,000 on the race. Had she ever served on a local council, or in the State Legislature, or in the House of Representatives? Nooooo. Why bother with learning the craft of political representation? She had money. She won the Republican nomination and came within 11 percentage points of winning the Senate seat.

In California in 2010, Meg Whitman, a businesswoman with zero experience in electoral politics spent $140 million trying to become Governor of the largest state in the union. She gained the Republican nomination but lost the general election by 13 points to Jerry Brown, the Democratic candidate.

As you can see, sometimes the infusion of massive amounts of money works. And sometimes it doesn't. But the huge sums spent on the campaign are incidental to the merits of the candidates. The business acumen that brought the candidate his or her money - assuming it wasn't simply inherited - does not translate easily to the political world. The goals of politics are different from those of business. The alliances are more complicated, more ephemeral in politics. The spotlight's glare is more intense in politics. The history of issues is longer and more storied in politics than in business. The consequences of victories and defeats extend further into the future.

The ridiculous entrance into and exit from 2012 Presidential politics of Donald Trump is a good case in point. He is, apparently, a sharp businessman. He was a stumbling, awkward and unsuccessful Presidential candidate.

Michael Bloomberg is a competent, successful businessman. And he is a pretty successful politician too. But his mistakes have been mostly the results of trying to apply business logic to governing the city. Why does this intelligent man believe that the politics of America cry out for a businessman to straighten out the political "mess" in Washington, Albany or City Hall?

Not a single important President of the United States ever came into the White House after a successful career as a business entrepreneur. Not one.

The presence of excessive money in politics reduces the quality of the stewardship of our city, our state and our nation. When the chief executive of one of those jurisdictions is chosen after a public examination of his or her political skills, there will be a connection between that person and those skills - needed as they are in actually fulfilling the duties of the office. The same can be said for legislative positions.

But when money supplants the examination of political skills by the people, it's going to happen that persons with inferior political skills, but more money, occupy the political offices, less able to defend the interests of the people against those who would subvert those interests for their own gain.

And the infusion of large amounts of money pushes the politically competent practitioners into the arms of the monied hustlers who inhabit Washington, Albany and every other state capital, and who scurry around New York's City Hall and city halls around the country.

As money grows more and more influential in American politics, the interests of the people, as perceived by them, will suffer more and more. They will grow angrier and angrier as they see their legitimate grievances go remedied. And then what will happen?