Found myself thinking about the less obvious money-fueled message Bruce Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont is sending to voters, and the implications when I read about this survey. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law’s national survey shows evidence that people feel big money corrupts democracy and discourages voter participation.
Two in three Americans – 65% – say that they trust government less because big donors to Super PACs have more influence than regular voters. Republicans (67%) and Democrats (69%) uniformly agree.
One in four Americans – 26% – say that they are less likely to vote because big donors to Super PACs have so much more influence over elected officials than average Americans.Less wealthy and less educated Americans were significantly more likely to say they would be less likely to vote because of Super PAC influence: 34% of respondents with no more than a high school education, and 34% of those in households with an annual income less than $35,000, said they would be less likely to vote.
It gets worse:
A higher number of African-American and Hispanic voters also stated that the disproportionate influence of Super PAC donors will discourage them from voting: 29% of African Americans and 34% of Hispanics said they were less likely to vote because of Super PAC influence.
41% of respondents – including 49% of those who have no more than a high school education and 48% of those with household incomes under $35,000 – believe that their votes don’t matter very much because big donors to Super PACs have so much more influence.
Bruce Lisman’s flood of money into Vermont’s democratic process will leave a high water stain farther up the political bank than ever before. Lisman says
"The futures of our state and our young people are at stake. I've worked hard and have done well. Spending my money on Vermont's future is more important than standing by passively."
It is unlikely Lisman would turn down the volume on his cash-fueled voice, even when shown that rather than encouraging future voters, his mega-funded megaphone is actively discouraging them. But maybe there is an option Bruce could find somewhere between buying himself the biggest microphone in the state and “standing by passively.”
Passively throwing money at it seems pretty easy thing to do. Maybe he could volunteer at COTS, or work with some kids who who could use a mentor. Or do some heavy lifting helping out folks in need of housing.
Making VT a better place doesn’t have to mean throwing cash at it. And last I checked, radio ads don’t necessarily make life better for anyone. I’m sure ‘the lisman foundation’ could spend $$$ improving lives right now, in real and concrete ways, like putting food on the table, or paying for energy retrofits, or sponsoring kids that are workin hard in school to travel abroad or to get into college.
And I really wonder about ‘I did well’. On the backs of who did you do well? I’d love to see some transparency on exactly where this great wealth came from. Did you profit in the crash? Or we’re you put of the market just in time?
Lead by example Bruce. Be a shining beacon of transparency and hope to show that money doesn’t completely corrupt, especially as it influences our politics. Man up C4VT. Lead the way by example.
Lisman never fails to deliver some good lines that show how out of touch he is with regular people.
It is kind of a sad state for the Republican party. If they had a better pool of members they could choose less blue-blooded candidates like Lisman and Tarrant or McMullen. The Democratic party has moneyed interests in its ranks, but their donations are not accepted in exchange for political candidacy. Clearly, the Vermont GOP has given up on winning the senate and congressional seats and is focused on just selling them to wealthy individuals who want to “pay for a microphone”.
I agree with Lisman and the GOP. We should streamline the electoral process and simply have the obscenely wealthy people purchase election results openly.
We could use ebay and sell political seats there, whoever pays the highest amount when the auction ends gets the seat.
Long ago the United States legalized bribery of legislators by simply replacing the word ‘bribery’ with the euphemism ‘lobbying’ and the word ‘criminal’ with ‘lobbyist’. Non-paying humans that actually vote in their district have no real say unless they bring a case full of $100 bills.
Some Federal legislators even have payment schedules so the briber knows how much money to ‘donate’ to purchase the votes that they want to buy.
(Disclaimer for Fox ‘News’ viewers: This comment is ‘snark’, and is therefore satirical in nature.)
will the MSM start asking Mr. Lisman the obvious question?
criticizing the Gov. and the Leg. is easy; what exactly does Lisman recommend? does spending a bunch of money on advertising insulate you from scrutiny and accountability?
sorry, not sure what came over me…
Need to replace “even” with “especially.”
Voter suppression is an intentional republican strategy, because they are more likely to win if fewer people vote. So, the news that his big money campaign would hurt democracy is likely to be some very encouraging music to his ears.