Written by Mitchell E. Ignatoff   

Greed. It defines the Republican Party. But it also defines the Democrats. The political system will not change until we change the way elections are financed.

The Republican Party is all about the rich using political influence to create laws that favor the rich becoming richer. I used to think the Democrats were different. But they too are run by the banks and the rich.

Look at the housing crisis. A lot of it could be solved by permitting bankruptcy judges to reduce the value of mortgages to the current value of the home. This was called a cram-down. A lot of people would have been able to keep their homes. Banks and those who had invested in mortgage backed securities would bear the loss.

This is not a radical solution. It happens all the time in the corporate world. For corporations it is called restructuring debt.

Bankruptcy judges used to have this power. But Congress and willing Presidents took it away. The policy that favored people being able to stay in their homes has given way to bankers and investors getting their money even if it forces families into the streets. This has and will vastly diminish the middle class whose biggest investment is their home.

When Obama took office there was a bill pending in Congress that would have restored this power to the bankruptcy court. But Obama would not support it. The bill died.

It is no surprise that registration in the Democratic and Republican parties has been declining. It is no surprise that the popularity of Congress has dropped to record lows. They both have abandoned the middle class.

When you see this relatively easy solution to the housing crisis deliberately abandoned in favor of investors and banks there really is no difference in the parties or the candidates. Obama and Romney are the same. Obama enacted Romney’s health care in Massachusetts as his national health care.

As the economic differences between candidates become narrower voters become less and less interested. Their votes matter less so less vote. A smaller minority of voters can elect someone. It becomes easier for a candidate to favor a group that does not reflect the general welfare of his district.

This has happened because candidates for political office have to ask private persons or companies to finance their campaigns for election or re-election. The more money that private person or company contributes the more he can expect that candidate to favor his economic interests. Although there are limits on individual contributions to campaigns there is no limit on the amount that a candidate can accumulate for his campaign. The more campaigns cost the more opportunity there is for private economic interests to influence a candidate.

Imagine how much more focused candidates would be on the general welfare of their voters if they could not accept private money to run for office. Imagine how much more focused Congress would be on the general welfare of their voters.

The solution is to limit candidates to a certain amount of government provided money, and no more. None from anyone. None from private persons or companies. There should be a 60 day period before elections where no money but the government provided money given to candidates may be spent on any kind of political advertising.

We must amend our Constitution. Nothing else will prevent this Supreme Court from invalidating limits on campaign spending under the First Amendment.

Amending the Constitution is a daunting task. Politicians who are financed by investors will oppose this. Private interest group financed by investors will oppose this. So will many incumbents since government finance of elections does not favor incumbents.

The alternative is for the greed of investors, abetted by the politicians they elect to destroy the middle class and democracy in this country.



Mitchell E. Ignatoff, Esq.