Most people on the Left are livid about campaign finance reform. Mention two words- Citizens United- to a Democrat and their heads will almost explode. Despite the fact that most campaign finance laws are a sham, the Supreme Court allows government to place limits on political speech under the broad rubric of “eliminating corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
The reason the Left believes in campaign finance reform is because (1) they held a huge advantage through union support pre-Citizens United and (2) the Right is just better at the game playing within the rules. For example, in the 2014, the candidate receiving the most outside help from political action committees and 527(c) organizations won 57.5% of the races. That was above the average win percentage of 51%. But, if you look deeper, 2014 was a Republican wave year and Republican/conservative organizations had a 73.3% success rate compared to 47.8% for Democrats. In the 2012 cycle, it was a 51/49 split.
This indicates that even though the same rules apply to both parties/ideologies, it is basically a 50/50 proposition who wins regardless of financial backing. Of course, the Left does not see it that way. They hold out the corrupting influence of money as the reason for conservative or Republican victories although they can rarely, if ever, point out a single instance of actual corruption. Instead, most of their discourse is over the perception of corruption.
Think about it. Does anyone expect James Inhofe to suddenly become a believer in climate change if Tom Steyer donated to his campaign? Would Ted Cruz become pro-choice if NARAL donated to him? If National Right to Life donated to Elizabeth Warren, would she become pro-life? The money follows the position. If the position followed the money, then perhaps one would have a prima facie case of corruption, but it doesn’t work that way.
This can all be boiled down to one thing: Democrats/liberals are sore losers. The rules are the same for both parties when it comes to campaign finance. They claim the system is rigged, that the deck is stacked against them (as if there are no rich liberal donors), that the people are being cut out of the process (as if dollar bills actually vote and as if people don’t make those donations).
Compare this with the recent comments by the wanna-be whiner-in-chief Donald Trump and his reaction to and depiction of the rules for getting delegates. The perfect example is his reaction to the Colorado convention. Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Donald Trump were all aware of the rules in advance. It has been eight months since Colorado announced they were using a convention rather than caucus or primary.
While we can make a case that this method is not the best, that is a whole other subject that has nothing to do with the present case. The nominating process is perhaps the weakest part of our whole electoral system. It was not addressed in the Constitution. And it is not perfect, but neither is it rigged against anyone in particular.
Someone once said, “All process arguments are insincere.” A loser will always find a reason to gripe and complain about the rules. But, the gripe is not really about the process, but about the result and Donald Trump found himself on the losing end because of his own ineptitude.
But, he is not above bending the rules when it suits his purpose. For example, he is now making the case that 1,237 is just some arbitrary number and that even if no one hits that number of delegates, the candidate with the most delegates going into the convention should just automatically get the nomination. Apparently the art of the deal includes Donald Trump’s rendition and interpretation of how things should be done.
Roger Stone has suggested that Trump delegates “pledge” loyalty to him even after the first ballot. Guess what? I do not believe there is anything in the rules that precludes this. And he is free to wrestle pledges out of delegates, just as Cruz can use the convention system to pick up delegates.
Of course, there are shortcomings to Trump’s arguments. Despite getting only 37% of the popular vote, he’s amassed 45% of the available delegates to this point. This is disproportional. Conversely, Cruz has a more proportional 28% of the vote and 32% of the delegates. But we do not hear Ted Cruz crying and whining. It was also noted that despite his claims that he has brought in so many “millions of people,” he actually has a lower percentage of the popular vote than any Republican candidate since 1980 with the exception of 1984, 1992 and 2004. By early April all Republican nominees had sown up at least 50% of the delegates by that time.
Consider also that this man’s entire campaign is based on his deal-making prowess. Obviously, if his campaign is any indication, then a Trump administration would be the most bizarre operation in the history of the country.
One final thought: someone (a pro-Trump article) used the analogy of baseball. It is within the rules to steal signs from the opposing team. It is done all the time. The article says that “because something is permissible doesn’t mean that it is good, that it raises faith and trust in the game.” Perhaps the novice baseball fan thinks that, but the experienced one knows the rules and that it is within the rules. No baseball manager complains they lost a game because their opposition stole signs.
Complaining is for losers like liberals, the Democratic Party and Donald Trump. Trump wrote the book on “the art of the deal.” Too bad he didn’t read the rules of the political game.