On Offer

One of the topics that I'm seeing come out of this most recent mid-term election is that of money in politics. It's been noted that companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceXAI and the like have been pouring money into campaigns. And while that expenditure may not have worked as well as company executives may have liked this time around, the general understanding that companies are buying policy preferences, and elections, chugs along.

Fair enough, I suppose. But one topic that I have yet to come across in the small corner of the podcast ecosystem in which I spend my time is: If elections are being sold, who's doing the selling? And I think that this may be a more pertinent question than it's given credit for.

In may general understanding, what money buys a campaign is a way to cut through public inattention. While there are any number of means through which people can obtain information about this or that candidate's positions on various topics, most of these, like websites, require at least some active effort on the part of the voter. And there are any number of people who can't or won't expend that effort. Here in Washington State, voters receive pamphlets in the mail that lay out the races, and candidates can place statements them. When I lived in an apartment, these voter's guides would quickly pile up in the trash can near the mailboxes... people couldn't even be bothered to take them back to their homes. Given this, campaigns rely on getting their messages to pop up on television, social media and people's inboxes. And these channels have costs associated with them.

So, at least as I see the world, one of the easier ways to reduce the impact of money on politics is to understand that when a person or organization "buys" an election, the general public is who's selling. A more active and engaged public would do a lot to make money less effective. If a candidate could put up a website and have people read it, they wouldn't need to rely so much on expensive means of proactively attempting to get themselves in front of people.

But one of the rule of the game, and one that I've come to understand is fairly ironclad, is that the public cannot be criticized. Because to do so would be akin to blaming the victim, even if that attitude may be standing between people and their stated goals. To be sure, I don't spend a whole lot of time reading candidate position papers, although I'll sometimes do so during primary elections. And, to be honest, most of the ones that I have read tend to be lists of banal platitudes masquerading as solutions to policy problems. I suspect, however, that this is indicative of the fact that so few people actually read them carefully, let alone follow up with questions.

In any event, I think that a somewhat more active public would go a long way towards solving the problem of money in politics. Except, perhaps, that most of the public doesn't consider it a problem in need of a solution.