What Politics Can Learn From The NFL
Stuart Comstock-Gay
June 16, 2005
Comstock-Gay is executive director of the National Voting Rights Institute, which represents defendant intervenors Vermont-PIRG and others in Vermont’s campaign spending limits lawsuit. For more information or to read the briefs in the case, visit www.nvri.org
Comparing sports to politics is often overdone. But there’s an instructive analogy regarding Major League Baseball, the NFL and American politics. It has to do with the corrupting manner in which we finance political campaigns, the financial imbalance in Major League Baseball and the encouraging model presented by the NFL. More about this in a moment.
The comparison is relevant today because, on June 15, the Supreme Court began receiving briefs once again asking the Court to revisit one of the most controversial decisions in the past 30 years—Buckley v. Valeo. Buckley is a big part of why political financing has gotten so out of hand.
The 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision set the standard for campaign finance reform laws in America. In Buckley, the Supreme Court upheld contribution and reporting limits passed by Congress, but struck down limits on campaign expenditures. That ruling—made with little evidence—continues to dominate the campaign finance landscape in America.
If all goes well, the court will decide to hear the case regarding Vermont’s political campaign spending limits law, a law that caps the amount that candidates can spend in elections, so that big money interests do not distort that state’s political culture. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August 2004 that spending limits can be constitutional, and now those who would see the law struck down—the Vermont Right to Life Committee and Vermont Republican Party, among others—have asked the court to review the case.
Those defending the law are equally eager for the court to take up the case. And the requests to the court to hear the case are being supported by a broad coalition including former Sens. Bill Bradley and Alan Simpson; current senators, including Jack Reed, D-RI; state judges; civil rights organizations; campaign finance reform activists, democracy reform organizations, secretaries of state, and state attorneys general.
In an era when the fundraising arms race continues to distort American politics, campaign spending limits can restore integrity and fairness in the electoral process.
On to sports. In baseball, as in politics, the team with the most money is the most likely to win. And without the big money, you can pretty much kiss goodbye to your chances of success. Does anybody really believe the Kansas City Royals—with a $40 million payroll—can ever compete with the Yankees and their $200 million payroll? But the NFL has gone with another model—a model of limits on spending and relatively equal chances. It's a model where the most effective team—not the richest—is the team that wins.
Consider: In the 10 seasons from 1995 to 2004, there were 394 playoff games played by Major League Baseball. In that decade, the 10 teams with the highest payrolls won 334 of 394 of the playoff games, for a stunning 85 percent winning rate. The 10 lowest payroll teams won only 12 of those 394 games—for a winning percentage of 3 percent. In 2004 alone, teams in the high-paying bracket won four out of five of their playoff games. The bottom 10 teams? None even qualified. In fact, not one of the bottom 10 teams has played in any World Series game in the past decade.
Yet as distorted as the numbers are for baseball, they’re worse for Congress. In the 2004 elections, in over 97-percent of House races and 88 percent of Senate races, the candidate who spent the most money won, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. In only 10 of 435 House races in 2004 did the winner spend less than the loser. And in only five of those races did the winner spend less than 80 percent of the amount spent by the loser. Spending ratios of 9:1 and 10:1 are not uncommon.
On the other hand, in the NFL, money is shared and salaries are capped. No team can spend more on salaries than a pre-determined amount—$80.6 million in 2004. As a result, no team is consigned to losing because they lack money. Sure, there are winners and losers. Over the past four years, the New England Patriots have won three Super Bowls, but not because they are wealthy. They won because they are well coached, well managed and play well together. Even teams from the least wealthy cities—like Green Bay—can consistently compete for the title. In the NFL, it’s not because they have too little money.
So if major league baseball is American politics, the NFL is what Vermont politics could be. The obsessive pursuit of campaign money is distorting Vermont politics, said that state’s legislature in 1997. So they capped spending on races for state offices—enough to run a good campaign, but not so much that a variety of voices would be excluded. Let the best team—and candidates—win. The law has been in litigation ever since, and only now is reaching the Supreme Court.
The Court will start reviewing the papers soon. Such a review could result in a landscape change in the way campaigns are financed across the country. Last November, the nation watched the most expensive election cycle in United States history, with overall candidate spending reaching nearly $2 billion dollars. Many of the briefs filed this week argue that today's system of unlimited campaign spending undermines the integrity of our elections.
June 16, 2005
Comstock-Gay is executive director of the National Voting Rights Institute, which represents defendant intervenors Vermont-PIRG and others in Vermont’s campaign spending limits lawsuit. For more information or to read the briefs in the case, visit www.nvri.org
Comparing sports to politics is often overdone. But there’s an instructive analogy regarding Major League Baseball, the NFL and American politics. It has to do with the corrupting manner in which we finance political campaigns, the financial imbalance in Major League Baseball and the encouraging model presented by the NFL. More about this in a moment.
The comparison is relevant today because, on June 15, the Supreme Court began receiving briefs once again asking the Court to revisit one of the most controversial decisions in the past 30 years—Buckley v. Valeo. Buckley is a big part of why political financing has gotten so out of hand.
The 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision set the standard for campaign finance reform laws in America. In Buckley, the Supreme Court upheld contribution and reporting limits passed by Congress, but struck down limits on campaign expenditures. That ruling—made with little evidence—continues to dominate the campaign finance landscape in America.
If all goes well, the court will decide to hear the case regarding Vermont’s political campaign spending limits law, a law that caps the amount that candidates can spend in elections, so that big money interests do not distort that state’s political culture. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August 2004 that spending limits can be constitutional, and now those who would see the law struck down—the Vermont Right to Life Committee and Vermont Republican Party, among others—have asked the court to review the case.
Those defending the law are equally eager for the court to take up the case. And the requests to the court to hear the case are being supported by a broad coalition including former Sens. Bill Bradley and Alan Simpson; current senators, including Jack Reed, D-RI; state judges; civil rights organizations; campaign finance reform activists, democracy reform organizations, secretaries of state, and state attorneys general.
In an era when the fundraising arms race continues to distort American politics, campaign spending limits can restore integrity and fairness in the electoral process.
On to sports. In baseball, as in politics, the team with the most money is the most likely to win. And without the big money, you can pretty much kiss goodbye to your chances of success. Does anybody really believe the Kansas City Royals—with a $40 million payroll—can ever compete with the Yankees and their $200 million payroll? But the NFL has gone with another model—a model of limits on spending and relatively equal chances. It's a model where the most effective team—not the richest—is the team that wins.
Consider: In the 10 seasons from 1995 to 2004, there were 394 playoff games played by Major League Baseball. In that decade, the 10 teams with the highest payrolls won 334 of 394 of the playoff games, for a stunning 85 percent winning rate. The 10 lowest payroll teams won only 12 of those 394 games—for a winning percentage of 3 percent. In 2004 alone, teams in the high-paying bracket won four out of five of their playoff games. The bottom 10 teams? None even qualified. In fact, not one of the bottom 10 teams has played in any World Series game in the past decade.
Yet as distorted as the numbers are for baseball, they’re worse for Congress. In the 2004 elections, in over 97-percent of House races and 88 percent of Senate races, the candidate who spent the most money won, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. In only 10 of 435 House races in 2004 did the winner spend less than the loser. And in only five of those races did the winner spend less than 80 percent of the amount spent by the loser. Spending ratios of 9:1 and 10:1 are not uncommon.
On the other hand, in the NFL, money is shared and salaries are capped. No team can spend more on salaries than a pre-determined amount—$80.6 million in 2004. As a result, no team is consigned to losing because they lack money. Sure, there are winners and losers. Over the past four years, the New England Patriots have won three Super Bowls, but not because they are wealthy. They won because they are well coached, well managed and play well together. Even teams from the least wealthy cities—like Green Bay—can consistently compete for the title. In the NFL, it’s not because they have too little money.
So if major league baseball is American politics, the NFL is what Vermont politics could be. The obsessive pursuit of campaign money is distorting Vermont politics, said that state’s legislature in 1997. So they capped spending on races for state offices—enough to run a good campaign, but not so much that a variety of voices would be excluded. Let the best team—and candidates—win. The law has been in litigation ever since, and only now is reaching the Supreme Court.
The Court will start reviewing the papers soon. Such a review could result in a landscape change in the way campaigns are financed across the country. Last November, the nation watched the most expensive election cycle in United States history, with overall candidate spending reaching nearly $2 billion dollars. Many of the briefs filed this week argue that today's system of unlimited campaign spending undermines the integrity of our elections.
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 6:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home