BCT Editorial – 5/29/05

This page was last updated on May 29, 2005.

Death grip; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 29, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The grip that special interests have on government in the United States is killing democracy in America.”

[RWC] You’ll see that nowhere in the editorial does the author define a “special interest.” Here is my definition.

“Consider the following chilly observation by Republican pollster Frank L. Luntz as he was quoted in Business Week [sic] magazine: ‘Special interests are so effective that you can kill almost anything today. The same techniques that elect people are used to defeat their initiatives.’

“Their influence is harmful because these special interests are looking out for No. 1, not what is best for the American people or the nation. They wield their power through the money they channel into the campaign chests of state and federal lawmakers and gubernatorial and presidential candidates.”

[RWC] The editorial failed to note local candidates.

“In Washington, Harrisburg and other state capitals [sic], money talks and the voters are a minor inconvenience that must be patronized at election time.

“This imbalance between lawmakers’ money constituencies and voting constituency is at the root of many of our problems.”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note who funds the special interest groups. It’s the voters, either directly or indirectly.

When we belong to the NRA, we contribute to a special interest group. When we contribute to Planned Parenthood, we contribute to a special interest group. When we geezers join AARP to get discounts on stuff, we contribute to a special interest. When labor union management conscripts part of your hard-earned paycheck, you “contribute” to a special interest. When you purchase a copy of the Times, you a contribute to special interest groups unless the Times doesn’t belong to any trade groups and none of its employees contribute to special interests either directly or indirectly. And so on, and so on.

Finally, the editorial presented no evidence to support its claim of an “imbalance between lawmakers’ money constituencies and voting constituency.” I don’t know that there isn’t; I just believe you need to support such allegations with supporting data.