By Dick Mller
The quadrennial political conventions serve little purpose these days.
The political parties (and the candidates) keep voters subdued with tight-scripted propaganda shows. Each day’s boring show is preceded and succeeded by day and night parties hosted by special interest groups. Taxpayers pay for the convention business that brings all these influential people to one place where they can be wined and dined, and influenced.
US News & World Report writes the presidential public financing system was created in 1974 to lessen influence of special interest money over campaigns and at the conventions. In 1972 International Telephone & Telegraph, facing several antitrust lawsuits, secretly met with Nixon Administration officials and donated $400,000 for the 1972 Republican National Convention. Shortly after, the government agreed to several out-of-court settlements favorable to IT&T.
In 1976 both parties almost paid for their conventions with $2 million each in public funds. In 1980 each party got $4 million and in 1984 this grew to $7 million, according to US News. Special interest money began to creep back into the picture after 1984 despite larger public gifts.
The FEC permitted the formation of “host” committees under non-profit structures. Corporations — with business tied to a compliant government — secretly channeled money to the non-profits. These non-profits then paid for entertaining the powers that run “our” government.
Do these special interest groups get value for their money? US News says the Campaign Finance Institute located the mother lode at the 2008 conventions. Despite non-disclosure practices, the Institute was able to trace $14 million in payments from banks and other groups at the center of the pending financial meltdown. During the convention they broke bread with party leaders, members of Congress and presidential nominees.
This year, both parties got $18.3 million in public funds for the convention. One GOP shindig was not funded by special interests. Taxpayers paid for a gala after-party Thursday night following the GOP “recess to 2016.” Longtime Journey leader and Democrat, Neal Schon, a Democrat, said $500,000 was too much to turn down a GOP invite.
The last time a nominee was not known until the convention was the Democrat event in 1972. Weary of nominees being picked in smoke-filled rooms and Chicago Mayor Dick Daley’s bullying at the 1968 convention, the Democrats embraced an elaborate but eventually futile effort to show that the Party reflected its voters’ thinking. Watergate pushed the Republicans into similar reforms. Their 1976 convention saw the delegates anguish before giving Gerald Ford a chance to rise above the Nixon pardon.
“Devoting any amount of taxpayer funding to political conventions is as unnecessary as it is unjustified” says Oklahoma Republican Congressman Tom Cole. Despite claims by his fellow party members who stand for less government and lower taxes, his one-man crusade remains a one-man crusade.
Money still runs both parties, the GOP more so. Moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats earn special interest donations by giving lip service to their respective party fringes.
Last week the GOP took less than two minutes to adopt a platform that was put together weeks ago. Objections and boos by Ron Paul delegates on the convention floor were ignored. Eleven minutes by actor Clint Eastwood was the only time convention bosses lost control.
This week the show moves from Tampa to Charlotte with a different cast, but same old, same old. There was some talk that Pro-Life supporters might get more time at the Democrat convention, but after Eastwood’s show, leaders may opt for tighter scripted subjects.
The most newsworthy item for the Democratic convention is the choice of location. Only an incumbent Democrat President could defy organized labor and allow millions of dollars to be spent in a “right-to-work” state.
Only seven per cent of tax filers now check the block to donate to public funding of Federal elections. In 2008 Obama was the first candidate for president to reject public campaign funding. This year both Obama and Romney rejected public funds, knowing they can raise more with far less restrictions.
