Dear Friends,
It seems to me, campaign expenditure reveals the actual value of political power. In a capitalist system the rational cost for a position would necessarily be less than the wage the position pays. In a socialist system much of our lives is determined by the government. It’s political power that donors are buying, not a wage. Control of the vast swaths of national wealth that flow through the hands of the government becomes the incentive. We can tell which kind of system we live in by this measure. Top spending runs north of 60 million dollars for a seat that pays roughly 1.3 million in salary, benefits, and other perks for the 6 year term. Under a cost/benefit analysis this seems absurd. Such out-of-balance spending suggests the income of the position is not the primary consideration… the power it wields is.
Free market economies are based on profit/loss, cost/return, and asset returns. In capitalist economies, profit is measured in money. This is in stark contrast to socialist economies where profit is of secondary consideration. Political power is always of primary consideration. This is because in a socialist economy political power is the currency while under free enterprise money is. In other words, access to power yields a return while producing goods and services yields taxes, regulation, and can draw the eye of Sauron. Even in fascist economies being too good can get one in trouble, but in Marxist ones it’s a gulag or worse. Standing out from the crowd is only acceptable in a socialist economy if one has the political favor to do so.
Limited government is as conducive to free markets as despotism is to socialist forms. If the power a senator wields were limited, then the value of the position would diminish back to the total pay plus benefits. No one would purchase a senator if there were no benefit to them. You would never see a campaign that cost more than the total return. Therefore, the less power in the hands of government, the less campaign costs would be. On the other hand, the more power invested in the hands of government, the more costly campaigns would be. That’s because the return isn’t in pay and benefits… it’s in power. Under a despotic government that power is unlimited so the cost people would pay to get that power would also be unlimited. Some would sell their very souls.
People pay more than just money to get that power when the power is the pay. There are people who would kill you for a 10 dollar bill in an alley given the chance, so how much more would such people do for the power to control trillions? The thought makes my blood run cold. We could identify them by their absolute lack of ethics, shame, and their perfect hypocrisy. Moreover, such people once in power would do their best to increase and protect that power. Spending caps and public financing hide the real value. Without them the price rises to reflect the value. Once power is sufficiently lucrative the courts get involved to normalize and expand it. This can be identified by courts that display double standards, disregard precedent, rule politically, and hold themselves above the law they adjudicate.
So I ask you, what type of economy do you live in? Judged by the spending in money, ethics, and reputation, do people pay more than the position is worth economically or not? Is the cost of getting hands on power going up or down? Are the courts staying well within the guardrails of law or are they out in the field cutting trail? These are questions to ask and answer to discern if your nation has a free market or is socialist. In free markets money is the currency while in socialist nations political power is. Once that question has been answered, ask yourself, do I want to live in a system where political power is paramount or one where diligence, merit, and intelligence are rewarded instead? The answer to that question will largely rest on one’s self-judgment.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
