The fallacy of absolute electoral equality
By Steve Farrell
web
posted February 14, 2000
Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court, upheld a Missouri state law which imposed
strict dollar limits on campaign contributions, reaffirming the Courts
long standing view, enunciated in Buckley v. Valeo (US 1976), that such
restrictions do not assail free speech.
The Missouri law in question, nearly identical to the federal campaign
finance law, bars individuals from giving more than $1,075 to a candidate
per election.
The reason: protect a relative equality of input from private citizens
into the Federal government. Simply: campaign finance democracy.
The Supreme Court held in Buckley v. Valeo that contribution caps "are
appropriate legislative weapons against the reality of improper influence
stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions."
Accordingly, "the ceilings imposed . . . serve the basic governmental
interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without
directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates
to engage in political debate and discussion."
So they say.
The problem is, such restrictions presuppose that the Founders thoughts
on equality were that every man should exercise an equal influence in
political affairs.
This supposition is false.
Equality, in the electoral process, as previously understood by our Founding
Fathers, was that every citizen might possess one vote, and that no citizen
might be excluded from the electoral process by reasons of faith or national
origin.
Later, as the definition of citizen expanded from head of household and
or property owner, to every adult, the underlying precept remained the
same - the equal right of every citizen to participate in the political
process.
This equal right to participate did not imply, however, that each individual
would apply himself equally to the political process, nor that such a
utopian idea would be desirable. The Founders knew it was against human
nature, common sense, and free speech.
To force an equality of political involvement, by equalizing the contribution
of the energetic and intelligent with that of the inert and the idiotic,
would be to foolishly inhibit, discourage, and discard the efforts of
your best citizens, and exalt the efforts of your worst citizens. A goal
of socialism.
The Founders opposed this. The interesting and intricate system of representation
they placed in the U.S. Constitution, which details - who could be elected,
how they were to be elected, and for what purpose they were to be elected
- reveals one overarching theme - the qualifications, modes, and expectations,
were different not equal.
Inequality of Age
Members of the House had to be at least 25 years of age, members of the
Senate at least 30 years of age, and the President had to be at least
35 years of age.
Likewise members of the House had to be US citizens for at least 7 years;
members of the Senate for at least 9 years; and the President for at least
14 years.
The Constitutional Convention’s sentiment, attached to these inequalities,
was this: As the scope of a job enlarges, so does the potential for evil.
The greater the responsibility, the more stringent the requirements, and
thus the smaller the group that could participate directly in that area
of government. This was common sense! Maturity, and personal acquaintance
with the American system and culture, were basic differences, which separated
legitimate candidates from dangerous ones.
Were all citizens equal in their opportunity to participate directly in
the government as candidates? The answer is NO!
Inequality of Expectations
In both "Madison's Notes On the Constitutional Convention," and in "The
Federalist Papers," the expectations concerning the character, learning,
and abilities of the candidates to these same three offices, were described
in sharply different terms.
The future members of the House were predicted to be turbulent, ambitious,
less learned than Senators, immature, ruled by passion and faction. (Note
please: The founders didn't want this type of character, but they understood
from history that the more democratic nature of the House would, as a
general rule, encourage this type of behavior.)
Members of the Senate, on the other hand, were expected to be senior statesmen,
scholars, and believe it or not, rich men.
Future presidents were predicted to be great communicators, of superior
skill and intellect, capable of viewing the nation and the world in sweeps,
of established moral integrity, and in short, a cut above the rest.
Were these various candidates for office expected to be equal in character
and ability? NO!
Inequality of Roles and Powers
The founders assigned roles to each area of government that recognized
differences in each political office, and differences in society - which
differences were to be protected, not homogenized, by a complex system
of representative government.
Generally,
* Individual members of the House represented citizens of particular geographic
districts.
* Members of the Senate, (elected originally by State Legislatures) represented
the States, commerce, and wealth.
* The President represented the people at large, or the interests of the
nation.
* The Supreme Court represented the law or the Constitution.
Each had different constituents. Each had different terms in office. Each
had different powers. One legislated law, one enforced law, and one judged
the law. They were by design, distinct and separate (though they shared
some powers).
In one sense they were equal. Equal to try to influence the law. In another
sense they were unequal, for each branch could only operate within the
confines of their delegated powers.
Were their roles and their legal opportunities to influence the law equal?
NO!
Inequality in the House of Representatives
Contribution caps operate on the premise that each individual, in terms
of representation, is a mathematical equal. But since we are not a democracy,
but a Republic, it is well to remember that Republics are far more complex
and ingenious than that. The idea was to promote a vigorous competition
of ideas from competing power centers, not give every person, or every
group, an exactly equal influence.
While the Constitution provided a mathematical rule as to how many representatives
would be awarded to each state, drawing district lines was not done (originally)
by an exact mathematical formula.
District lines historically were drawn, said Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter
(Baker v. Carr, 1962), based upon a variety of considerations such as:
"geography, demography, electoral convenience, economic and social cohesions
or divergencies among particular local groups, communications, the practical
effects of political institutions like the lobby and the city machine,
ancient traditions and ties of settled usage, respect for proven incumbents
of long experience and senior status, mathematical mechanics, censuses
compiling relevant data, and a host of others.”
He added, “[equality] respective of population" was only one of many considerations,
"others, forsooth, more appealing.”
Near the top of the list was urban-rural conflict. It was not untypical,
both on a national, and especially on a state level, that a sparsely populated
rural district would receive the same single vote in congressional proceedings
as a densely populated city district. In such an arrangement, the rural
lifestyle (which Jefferson described as the moral backbone of our country)
was equally protected in Congress, even though their representation was
a numerical inequality, and a seeming injustice to city dwellers.
The battle over this aspect of Republicanism continues today, as political
groups battle to redraw district lines along racial, political, and economic
lines. But the main thing they are all looking for is group representation,
which is part of what a republic is supposed to give us.
Every person cannot vote. Every interest, class, and culture is not the
same. And since government cannot be administered by a mob of 260 million
individuals (for a variety of reasons), republican government deals in
sweeps which try to give all individuals and classes of individuals access
to the debate through the inexact science of representation.
In this sense, purely private lobbying (not government subsidized lobbying
like we have today - which distorts the political picture by artificially
propping up interests that are more isolated than they appear), from corporations,
associations, unions, watchdog groups, ethnic organizations, and churches,
all have a legitimate place in helping bring to the attention of lawmakers
a healthy medley of interests. In Madison’s view, nothing could be finer.
The more competing forces, he argued the harder it is for forces to combine
all governmental powers into one head and produce an absolute tyranny.
Inequality in the Senate
The last example of the rejection of absolute mathematical equality by
the Founders, which we will consider, is the US Senate.
The chief excuse, often sited, for a $1,000 cap on individual donations
is the desire to prevent the (evil) rich from obtaining an undemocratic/unequal
advantage in the political process.
But think about it! Let’s suppose we kept that law in place, and also
equalized and limited to $1,000, soft contributions (those funds which
are used not to say “Vote For Bob,” but to debate issues) .
That done. Let’s ask ourselves if the rich, as a class, are in the majority
or minority in society?
They are a minority.
Then, in theory, if the government was successful in preventing the rich
from levying the influence they desire (even though they likely have a
higher stake in preserving economic and political order than does the
average citizen), would this not trivialize the political influence of
the prosperous?
The answer is yes.
Did the Founders want this? NO! This is one of the reasons they gave us
the Senate.
The Senate, as already alluded to, was prior to 1913, elected by the State
Legislatures. The intent was that the Senate would be a check on several
groups, (most especially a check against the hegemony of the Federal Government
over the states, and the hegemony of large states over small states).
They were, also, designed to be a check and a buffer zone in favor of
the interests of private property, commerce, and the rich, against the
covetousness of the less prosperous classes - whose interests would manifest
themselves, in time, in the US House.
Sometimes we forget that the President, the Senate, and the House, each
represented three different types of governments: the President, the government
of Kings; the Senate, the government of the Rich and Noblemen; the House,
the government of the People. Any one of these, by themselves were a prescription
for tyranny. Our Republic, under the Constitution, solved this problem,
by striking a safe and inspired balance between the three.
Therefore, contrary to the spirit and letter of campaign finance laws
which make it a sin for the rich, for industrialists, and for mammoth
corporations to protect their interests, the Founders established the
US Senate, to do that very thing.
Not only should campaign finance laws be without caps for private citizens
and corporations, but the election of the Senate should be once again
conducted by state legislatures rather than by the people, so that the
interests of the states, the rich, and commerce will again find representation
in one branch of Congress. Without it, socialism, which pure democracy
produces, is thrust into the system.
We were forewarned on this issue, by our Founding Fathers, 213 years ago.
Elbridge Gerry, during the Constitutional Convention, arguing against
the direct election of US Senators by the people, warned:
“The people have two great interests, the landed interest, and the commercial,
including the stockholders. To draw both branches from the people will
leave no security to the latter interest; the people being chiefly composed
of the landed interest, and erroneously supposing that the other interests
are adverse to it [that is that they tend to embrace the Marxist notion
that the rich despise and exploit them].”
Madison too, understood that pure democratic tendencies produced socialism
and that special access for the rich to one branch of Congress was a check
against this.
He stated: “No agrarian (socialist) attempts have yet been made in this
country; but symptoms of a leveling spirit . . . have sufficiently appeared
in a certain quarter to give notice of the future danger.”
The cure, Republican government, with one of its chief features, the statesmen
of the US Senate, more attached to “wisdom, virtue, . . . and justice,”
then the democratic House.
Doctors of Absolute Equality
Those doctors of absolute equality today, who would try to equalize the
political output of every American, display loyalty, whether they realize
it or not, to socialism, not to American liberty.
It would be better that they rediscover that America’s Founders gave us
a Constitution that produced an equal right to participate, not a demand
or expectation that we participate equally.
The rich, the prosperous, or the corporation, like any other person or
group, have an equal right to participate as their interests, inclinations,
abilities, and finances permit them.
To limit the contribution of a class of people who have learned the value
of hard work, who have learned how to lead, and who have learned how to
save; and to exalt the output of those who have not, is to turn our back
on the American dream of liberty and to embrace the European vision of
socialism. 
Steve Farrell is widely published research writer who specializes in
Constitutional Law. His column is carried by CalNews, Liberty Caucus,
Ether Zone, Enter Stage Right, Spin Tech Magazine, OpinioNet, ConEye and
NewsMax.com. Projects include his upcoming book Democrats In Drag:
Another Look at the Republican Party. Please email your comments and/or
media requests to Steve at Cyours76@hotmail.com
