As I continue to observe the race for Pennsylvania’s 8th congressional district the race remains “likely right” but lets take a deeper look into the issues of money in this election. If we sift through the Open Secrets web page for this election, there is a lot of interesting information to be found. The first thing to notice is that incumbent Fitzpatrick has a much bigger wallet than his competitor Strouse; $2,482,114-$1,016,010. While they both received a majority of their funding from large corporations, Stouse supplemented his campaign with his own money yet Fitzpatricks next largest contributors come from PACs. One might assume that this disparity would greatly damage Strouse’s chances but his campaign has actually spent $747,290 while Fitzpatricks campaign has only spent $689,367 (Open Secrets). The candidates also have relatively similar out of state funding. Although it is easy to say that more money means a better chance of election, the facts- at least in Fitzpatricks past campaigns- do not back that up. In 2006, when running against Patrick Murphy, Fitzpatrick spent $770,110 more than Murphy but ended up losing the candidacy. In his next race against Murphy, Fitzpatrick had a blatant disadvantage with only $2,090,793 as compared to Murphy’s $4,246,047 but came out victorious (Open Secrets). Ok, so it appears as though the numbers will not give us any good answers, if there are any monetary issues in this campaign they are a bit further below the surface.
If we take a look back from this current race it appears that Fitzpatrick is not completely clean. Back in 2012 Fitzpatrick was accused of making earmarks after proposing 8 tariff bills that directly benefited United Color Manufacturing Inc., a local Bucks County company. What raised eyebrows was that just one month before the bills were introduced the owner of this company donated $5,500 to Fitzpatrick’s campaign and also had a history of donations to the republican party (Roll Call). While there was no clear quid pro quo in this case and it did blow over, it is hard to imagine that their was not some ulterior motive when Fitzpatrick proposed these bills. It could be said that he chose to support this domestic company because he is noted as a “Guardian of Small Business” (NFIB) and that it genuinely has nothing to do with the money. There is no way to know for sure if this was a monetary issue, but we can always look back at his past decisions on this topic.
We all recall the scandal of Mitt Romney’s 47% remark but probably not as many people know that Mike Fitzpatrick had a 47% scandal of his own. During that election Fitzpatrick was videotaped at a Tea Party rally saying that, “we need to support people who have a history and know what it is like to sign the front of a paycheck, not the back of a paycheck,” (KeyStone Politics). Now, we can all read into this how we want but it is undeniable that Fitzpatrick is saying that those with more money deserve more support. Whither or not Fitzpatrick was just pandering to Tea Party members, this quote exemplifies one of the main fears about money’s implications on politics, namely, that those with more money are more important than those in the working class.
When looking at numbers alone from Fitzpatricks campaigns there seems to be no danger when money plays a role in politics. Sure Fitzpatrick gets large donations from Super Pacs but it does not shift how the election turns out. The problem begins to appear as we look at what happens to those who donate. Even though nothing illegal may be happening, it has a clear impact on the candidate’s decisions. With money does come power and this fact is degrading our political system. As those in the middle and lower classes see that only large donors reap the benefits of an election they lose the incentive to take part in one. Politicians can deny this fact but as their salaries rise, voter turnout falls. If this trend continues unabated, the wealth gap that currently haunts our economy will only keep growing.
Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics. “Pennsylvania District 08 Race”. Accessed October 1, 2014.
Strong, Jonathan. "Mike Fitzpatrick Tariff Bills to Benefit Donors." Roll Call. May 30, 2012. Accessed October 2, 2014.
Payne, Maureen M. "Assemblyman Michael Fitzpatrick Named a Guardian of Small Business | NFIB." National Federation of Independent Business. December 1, 2010. Accessed October 2, 2014.
Sternberger, Jake. "The Fallout From Mike Fitzpatrick’s “47%” Moment." Keystone Politics. September 27, 2012. Accessed October 2, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment