|
|
Buy This
Vote! The Web puts democracy on
sale. By Jeremy
Derfner Posted Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2000, at 12:30
p.m. PT
Last Tuesday, an eBay user offered his vote to
the highest bidder, and five copycat vote-sellers followed suit.
Meanwhile, James Baumgartner, a graduate student at Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, had launched Voteauction.com, an Internet marketplace for the
wholesale purchase of votes. The model was simple: Recruit willing voters,
auction them off in state blocs, double-check their absentee ballots for
accuracy, and split the proceeds evenly. The schemes generated a lot of
media attention and some sellers and buyers—the bidding on eBay reached
$10,100, and Voteauction found 200 takers in a single
day.
But it was all over
inside a week. Baumgartner shut down Voteauction after his academic
adviser received a call from the state board of elections, and he sold the
content and domain name to an Austrian company. eBay pulled all six
auctions after a day.
The
problem is that vote-buying and -selling is clearly illegal. Every state
prohibits a market in votes, and buying or selling votes in a federal
election is a federal
crime punishable by a $10,000 fine and five years in jail. (So
far, no Internet vote-sellers have been charged.) Though Baumgartner isn't
testing it, he has suggested that he could mount a defense on the grounds
that money equals speech, a reference to the landmark Supreme Court
decision in Buckley
vs. Valeo, which struck down campaign spending limits and is
anathema to campaign-finance reformers. In fact, a Buckley defense
would fail. In 1982, the court ruled (in Brown
vs. Hartlage) that buying, selling, or arranging to buy or
sell votes in not constitutionally protected speech.
Baumgartner insists that votes have been for
sale in America at least since 1757, when George Washington bought alcohol
for every voter in his House of Burgesses district. But the reality of
colonial corruption was rarely so simple. Voters were tied to each other
through business and family connections, and a man was expected to vote
for his patrons.
Flagrant
vote-buying came into prominence with the expansion of the franchise and
the rise of the political boss in the mid-1800s. Big-city machines
routinely got out the vote by paying for it with cash on election morning.
The practice was so common that cartoonist Thomas Nast started his career
depicting it (click here
for an example). On a deeper level, the machines unapologetically operated
on the principle of giving favors for votes. Poor voters especially could
count on food, coal, and patronage jobs as long as they voted with the
boss.
By the late 1800s,
reformers were sure the machines had corrupted democracy. They pushed for
secret ballots and Australian ballots (as opposed to pre-marked party
ballots) in part so that bosses could never be sure who voted for whom.
Most political machines broke down by the 1920s, and yet a vote-buying
scandal still crops up every few years. In 1996, for instance, 21
Georgians were indicted for selling their votes in a county election for
$50 apiece.
Some experts saw
the abortive Internet vote auctions as old-style machine politics with a
high-tech twist. The chairman of the Voting Integrity Project,
a conservative front group, called Voteauction an "obscenity" and warned
of a "bloodless coup." But few would disagree that the problem with money
in politics today is the hundreds of millions of dollars at the top, not a
few dollars at the bottom. Which is why the short-lived vote sale should
be seen less as a serious act of sabotage and more as guerrilla
theater.
One eBay seller
confirmed that the auction of his vote was a "political prank." His
original posting included the following description: "Why should the
American citizen be left out? Congressmen and senators regularly sell
their vote to the highest bidder. Democracy for sale!"
Baumgartner's intentions are harder to figure
because he never recanted or even cracked a smile, but his sense of irony
is undeniable. According to Baumgartner, the biggest spenders invariably
win elections today, but they do it messily, with big advertising budgets
and paid consultants. Voteauction, he claimed, would bring market
efficiency to the electoral process by "cutting out the middle man."
Voteauction's slogan? "Bringing Democracy and Capitalism Closer
Together."
Ralph Nader's
now-famous MasterCard parody makes the same point (click here to see the
ad), as did the protesters outside the conventions when they offered
delegates money for their credentials. Many campaign-finance reformers,
including Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive
Politics and American University law professor Jamin Raskin, have
said they appreciate the vote-selling sentiment, though they would deplore
the practice.
John Bonifaz,
the executive director of the National
Voting Rights Institute, said the vote auctions are indeed
bribery, but so is "a lot of what goes on in the halls of Congress and in
the White House." What Baumgartner and the eBay seller did is "only one or
two steps removed from the existing campaign-finance system," Bonifaz
said.
Join
The Fray What did you think of this article?
Jeremy Derfner is a Slate editorial
assistant.
|