Representatives of the People?
Obtaining high political office today is quite a challenge—a challenge to raise enough money to buy the position, that is. The days of a common person from small-town-America rising through political chairs just on the basis of their honesty and ethical behavior are long gone. Today it takes excessive amounts of one major ingredient to win high political office—MONEY!
Most of us are still reeling from the report that Michael Bloomberg spent over $87 Million on his resent mayoral campaign, which is $157.45 per vote. That got me thinking about the impact of money on political office, and while researching, I ran into some interesting numbers in the latest issue of Newsweek magazine.
Newsweek published the public numbers for campaign costs for Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg, and 35 Senate campaigns run in 2008. You might find the following interesting:
|
NAME |
POSITION |
AMOUNT SPENT |
COST PER VOTE |
| Barack Obama |
President |
$760,369,688 |
11.37 |
| Michael Bloomberg |
N.Y.C. Mayor |
87,710,101 |
157.45 |
| SENATORS: |
|
|
|
| Mitch McConnell |
R-KY. |
21,306,296 |
22.54 |
| Al Franken |
D-MINN |
21,066,834 |
17.37 |
| John Cornyn |
R-TEXAS |
16,454,518 |
3.80 |
| Saxby Chambliss |
R-GA. |
15,692,294 |
12.85 |
| Mark Udall |
D-COLO. |
12,987,562 |
11.14 |
| Mark Warner |
D-VA. |
12,515,479 |
5.29 |
| John Kerry |
D-MASS. |
12,279,425 |
6.27 |
| Mary Landrieu |
D-LA. |
10,146,669 |
10.29 |
| Kay Hagan |
D-N.C. |
8,953,274 |
4.02 |
| Jeanne Shaheen |
D-N.H. |
8,208,542 |
22.87 |
| Max Baucus |
D-MONT. |
8,164,703 |
23.60 |
| Frank Lautenberg |
D-N.J. |
8,135,752 |
4.44 |
| Richard Durbin |
D-ILL. |
8,016,455 |
2.28 |
| Tom Udall |
D-N.M. |
7,841,889 |
15.77 |
| Susan Collins |
R-MAINE |
7,765,295 |
17.47 |
| Jeff Merkley |
D-ORE. |
6,501,315 |
7.96 |
| Pat Roberts |
R-KAN. |
6,297,288 |
8.84 |
| Roger Wicker |
R-MISS. |
6,160,116 |
9.49 |
| Carl Levin |
D-MICH. |
5,784,520 |
1.91 |
| James Inhofe |
R-OKLA. |
5,477,730 |
7.18 |
| Tom Harkin |
D-IOWA |
5,022,490 |
5.40 |
| Joe Biden |
D-DELA. |
4,907,245 |
19.06 |
| John D. Rockefeller IV |
D-W.VA. |
4,820,379 |
10.85 |
| Lamar Alexander |
R-TENN |
4,571,728 |
2.91 |
| Tim Johnson |
D-S.D. |
4,550,590 |
19.13 |
| Lindsey Graham |
R-S.C. |
4,463,619 |
4.21 |
| Mark Begich |
D-ALASKA |
4,443,284 |
29.48 |
| Mike Johanns |
R-NEB. |
3,781,316 |
8.45 |
| Jim Risch |
R-IDAHO |
3,573,256 |
9.66 |
| Mark Pryor |
D-ARK. |
3,284,632 |
4.12 |
| Jeff Sessions |
R-ALA |
3,240,151 |
2.49 |
| Jack Reed |
D-R.I. |
2,258,706 |
7.44 |
| Thad Cochran |
R-MISS. |
2,063,627 |
2.85 |
| John Barrasso |
R-WYO. |
1,981,441 |
11.11 |
| Michael Enzi |
R-WYO. |
1,247,841 |
6.77 |
|
|
____________ |
|
|
|
TOTAL |
$1,112,046,050 |
|
(Newsweek© research by Ian Yarett)
And the above total is just for the winners. Can you imagine what the actual amount spent would be if we added in McCain’s, Clinton’s, and all the other opponents of the above politicians? This is also just a sample of 35 offices out of many hundreds, especially if you include high state and big city positions. Obviously, several billions of dollars are spent annually (not only in election years) just to get into political office.
So, where does that money come from? Well, a small amount comes from American citizens. Another dab comes from small businesses, and this usually goes directly to the politician. But, the bulk of the money comes from big business, and winds its way through various political action committees and other means of circumventing campaign contribution laws.
The point here is that these enormous sums of campaign money can only come from wealthy people and big business. These are the same people who hire their minions on K Street to make sure the newly “supported” politicians act accordingly.
Is it any wonder that small business gets short shrift from their representatives? Small business cannot begin to compete with the mountains of money dished out by big business.
Sadly, this is not likely to change until we eliminate the “club” atmosphere in Washington—by instituting term limits, and passing actual campaign finance reform laws. Will that happen? Not likely, because those in the “club” like it the way it is…it will take a near revolution to bring this kind of change to pass.
But, maybe small business owners should keep this in mind the next time they get trampled on by legislation that favors only big business.
Small Business Needs Leadership in Washington
In my last post, I presented the fact that American banks were actually cutting back even more on loans to small business. Then today I read a post by Arianna Huffington, on the Huffington Post, where she discusses this same issue, plus, the lack of leadership in Washington to resolve this problem. I have included some excerpts from Arianna’s post below, but I would encourage all small business owners to read her post in its entirety.
—The president, in a recent radio address, said he would take appropriate steps to “encourage” banks to meet their responsibilities. Encourage them? Pundits encourage while presidents execute…that’s their job!
—The president’s plan of action for getting small business back on track financially is to convene a conference in the coming weeks. Instead of taking decisive action, the most powerful person on earth is going to “convene a conference.” Here is what Arianna had to say:
Of course, we all know that in Washington-speak ‘I’m going to convene a conference’ is somewhere up there with ‘I’m going to establish a blue-ribbon commission’ in terms of kicking an issue down the road.
But, is there anything the president can really do, other than use moral suasion, to sway the behavior of our financial system? Of course there is! How about this:
—Open up the Fed to full transparency. This should have been a condition for the president appointing Bernanke to a second term. Instead, the Fed is now fighting an audit proposed by Congress—and the White House is silent.
—The president also appoints the heads of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (supervises commercial banks); the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the head of the Office of Thrift Supervision (regulates savings and loans); the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (oversees derivatives). If these powerful people cannot move the banks to support small business…it is time for the president to make some re-appointments. That’s what would happen in any successful American business.
—More importantly, the president picks the person who runs the Treasury Department. Here is what Adrianna said about this appointment:
…the Treasury Department…is not legally mandated to be overseen and staffed by former Goldman Sachs executives and their friends. And there is nothing in the Constitution that says the Treasury Secretary has to be in near-constant contact with the heads of Goldman, Citigroup, and J.P. Morgan, often taking their calls late at night.
Perhaps this is an appointment that needs to be reconsidered now.
—The president also has the power to regulate. Instead, he has chosen to allow the proposals for financial regulatory reform that are working their way through Congress to be riddled with loopholes and exemptions favorable to Wall Street.
Here is Arianna’s closing statement:
…if only Barack Obama would stop acting like a pundit, egging on change from the sidelines, and start acting like the president, dictating the game from the middle of the field.
Every small business in America has a congressional representative and two Senators, who have been elected to serve and represent those who put them in Washington. Now is the time to tell these representatives, as well as the president, that it is not Wall Street, nor K street who deserves their allegiance—it is the people who elected them, and we demand to be represented. It is up to us to demand leadership. It is also up to us to reappoint our representatives at the ballot box, it they don’t do their job.
Read Arianna’s entire post here.
NOTE: This Friday, Arianna, along with Howard Dean, will take part in a debate on C-Span with Dick Armey, and John Kasich on the question “America’s Future: Can Capitalism Survive? This is something that should interest every small business owner in America.
New FTC Guidelines
The FTC released new guidelines for bloggers and Internet marketers a short time ago, which are causing a bit of a furor. For in-depth information on the potential effect of these guidelines on book or product reviewers, read this post by Edward Champion outlining his interview with Richard Cleland of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. Quite enlightening!
Also, if you use, or are considering using, testimonials, you should first read this post by Frank Kern, who summarizes his attorney’s advice regarding the use of testimonials when advertising anything you sell, or may sell, online.
It appears that the FTC thinks some of the claims we all see on many web sites and blogs are a bit over the top. Unfortunately, when the government gets involved they typically exhibit a poor understanding of the problem, and they approach the solution much like hunting mice with a cannon. Collateral damage usually outweighs any benefits that might occur.
Paying for New Healthcare Plan
I see that Senator Baucus is about to solve the issue of paying for healthcare reform—he wants to tax the insurance companies! Perhaps he is following the lead of Oregon Governor Kulongoski, who recently signed into law a new tax on health insurance companies operating in Oregon…in order to help pay for the “Oregon Plan.”
Needless to say, the Oregon health insurance companies immediately passed every penny of the new tax onto their insured through increases in premiums. What are these politicians thinking? Don’t they understand that taxing the insurance companies is simply taxing the insured through increased premiums?
This type of thinking is what is driving the small business person crazy—they don’t know what to think, or do, but many of those who have health insurance programs in place for their employees are certain that they will likely be dropping, or reducing, those plans. So, what is the government gaining if they price insurance premiums out of reach of small business?
Hopefully, there are enough people in Washington, who have some sense of reality, to overcome those who are totally out of touch. I know that is a lot to hope for, but maybe I’m just an optimist.
Cash for Clunkers?
I just read that 4 out of 5 new cars sold through the “cash for clunkers” program were foreign brands. True, some foreign models are assembled in American factories, but even then, the far greatest stimulus through this program is to the foreign parts manufacturers, foreign assembly plants, and foreign owned businesses. The “cash for clunkers” program also seems to have helped Toyota get on track to become the largest auto producer in the world. (WSJ 7/29/09)
I am sure that this program does help many (not all) dealers, car salesmen, and financial institutions in the U.S. I’m also sure it has provided some benefit (at least temporarily) to the American auto industry. But, I wonder if that was the best way to spend $3 Billion (so far) of taxpayer money?
What if…
What if that $3 Billion had been allocated to small business in general. Money for expansion and growth. Money for new startups. Money for R&D. Money to retrain the unemployed. This is where meaningful re-employment will take place. Small businesses have virtually unlimited needs in order to achieve the economic recovery mandate set out for them by the current administration. And yes, small business may be the most innovative—but to innovate “quickly” they need to have access to capital. The $3 Billion just spent would have gone a long way to accomplish this.
That’s my take—what’s yours?
Home Businesses…Beware!
Seventy percent—around 21.1 million—U.S. businesses have no employees, and many, many of these businesses are conducted out of the owner’s homes. This practice has been ongoing for generations, if not centuries. It is a time-honored and normal entrepreneurial endeavor.
However, that may be coming to an end, at least in part. I ran across a post in makezine.com, by Robert Bruce Thompson, a chemist with several books to his credit, among them, An Illustrated Guide to Home Chemistry Experiments. Thompson’s post is a little scary, and should be soberly considered by all entrepreneurs who work in their homes. Excerpts would not do justice to Thompson’s post, so I will include it in its entirety below:
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette reports that Victor Deeb, a retired chemist who lives in Marlboro, has finally been allowed to return to his Fremont Street home, after Massachusetts authorities spent three days ransacking his basement lab and making off with its contents.
Deeb is not accused of making methamphetamine or other illegal drugs. He’s not accused of aiding terrorists, synthesizing explosives, nor even of making illegal fireworks. Deeb fell afoul of the Massachusetts authorities for … doing experiments.
Authorities concede that the chemicals found in Deeb’s basement lab were no more hazardous than typical household cleaning products. Despite that, authorities confiscated “all potentially hazardous chemicals” (which is to say the chemicals in Deeb’s lab) from his home, and called in a hazardous waste cleanup company to test the chemicals and clean up the lab.
Pamela Wilderman, the code enforcement officer for Marlboro, stated, “I think Mr. Deeb has crossed a line somewhere. This is not what we would consider to be a customary home occupation.”
Allow me to translate Ms. Wilderman’s words into plain English: “Mr. Deeb hasn’t actually violated any law or regulation that I can find, but I don’t like what he’s doing because I’m ignorant and irrationally afraid of chemicals, so I’ll abuse my power to steal his property and shut him down.”
In effect, the Massachusetts authorities have invaded Deeb’s lab, apparently without a warrant, and stolen his property. Deeb, presumably under at least the implied threat of further action, has not objected to the warrantless search and the confiscation of his property. Or perhaps he’s just biding his time. It appears that Deeb has grounds for a nice juicy lawsuit here.
There’s a lesson here for all of us who do science at home, whether we’re home schoolers or DIY science enthusiasts. The government is not our friend. Massachusetts is the prototypical nanny state, of course, but the other 49 aren’t far behind. Any of us could one day find the police at the door, demanding to search our home labs. If that day comes, I will demand a warrant and waste no time getting my attorney on the phone.
There’s a word for what just happened in Massachusetts. Tyranny. And it’s something none of us should tolerate.
Here is an interesting follow-up from Mr. Deeb’s daughter:
I am the daughter of Victor Deeb and what they did and took from my father is not only unfair but devastating to an old man whose life for the last 40 years has been chemistry. They not only took all of his chemicals (which he used in his research for non-toxic sealants for baby food jars) but 20 years of notes that were valuable only to him. Now his research notes have magically disappeared into thin air. Can someone tell me where the justice is in that?
-m deeb
What do you think—could anything like this happen in your town…in your neighborhood? Homeland Security and the Patriot Act have changed the landscape in the U.S., and it does make a person wonder…….
My Book
Any business crisis can be managed before it becomes fatal . . . Be Your Own Turnaround Manager tells you how. Click here for more information.