The dollar influence

ON ONE point there cannot be an iota of doubt. No one in the United States ever tries to capture polling booths, to snatch away electronic voting machines or to stuff the ballot boxes when an odd state opts for paper ballots. No one attempts to intimidate the voters, leave alone prevent them from exercising their franchise. Nor for that

matter does the administration need to deploy battalions of armed constabulary to ensure that elections are not disrupted by criminals and crooked politicians with hooligans at their command, leading to the poll being protracted as it usually is in India. In a country three time the size of India with a third of its population, every election is completed in a single day.
However, there are nicely camouflaged nuances in America’s electoral system which can subtly tilt the balance one way or the other as I have witnessed time and again. Needless to add that all the shenanigans revolve almost entirely around election funding that a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, “Tip” O’Neal, famously described as the only thing comparable to “mother’s milk”.
For instance, in 1996 when President Bill Clinton was seeking re-election, a Chinese-American, Johnny Cheng by name, made a statement that has won a permanent place in the US political folklore. “The White House”, he declared, “is like a subway station. You put the right amount of money in the turnstile, and you are in”. There was great to-do at that time because enterprising Johnny was able to establish that one could sleep in Lincoln’s bedroom for a night by donating a certain amount of money to the Clinton election fund. However, nothing much came out of it. Mr Clinton ruled for a second term.
The “younger Bush versus Al Gore” presidential poll in 2000 provided a diversion of a very different kind. It turned out to be, as Wellington had said of Waterloo, a “damned close run thing”. The two candidates got roughly equal votes and the validity of some of these was questioned. Especially in the state of Florida where Mr Bush’s younger brother Jeb was governor. Why the questioned votes were nicknamed “pregnant shads” was never explained, but excitement was acute. Eventually, it was a judicial verdict that conferred victory on Mr Bush. The talk about the “stolen” election continued, however, George W. redeemed himself by winning convincingly in 2004.
In 2008, I could not stay in the US until Barack Obama’s spectacular victory in the election. But I was there long enough to witness the fiercely fought primary for Democratic nomination between him and Hillary Rodham Clinton, now his secretary of state. At the height of this struggle, another American power broker of Chinese origin and a staunch supporter of Ms Clinton, whose name regrettably escapes me, stole the limelight. He worked tirelessly to persuade small donors to contribute $163 each to Ms Clinton’s fund, the maximum then allowed under the law. By the time he presented her with a million-dollar collection it had become known that the money was actually his own. He had paid every donor the amount for which the latter wrote out the cheque. Ms Clinton returned the money and that ended the matter.
What has happened during the recent mid-term elections surpasses anything that came to light in the past. In the first place, it has been the most expensive mid-term poll in American history, the expenditure on it having gone up to $3.7 billion from $2.9 billion in 2006 and $1.8 billion in 1998. But that is incidental. The real story is that while there is a limit on individual or corporate donations to candidates directly, there is absolutely no ceiling on what non-governmental organisations can pour into the coffers of political parties. This huge money is generally used for rival political ads on TV a large number of which are in bad taste. To make matters worse, under a judgment of the Supreme Court, delivered in March 2010, the organisations pouring money into elections are not required to disclose the source of the donations they receive. Ironically, the judicial verdict was secured by a group called “Citizens United” in the name of “Free Speech”. Under the circumstances, it is no surprise that one of the biggest spenders, benefiting primarily the Republican Party, is the US Chamber of Commerce. At the other end of the political spectrum, the AFL-CIO (the American Federation of Labour-Central Industrial Organisation) has tried to do its bit for the Democrats.
On the campaign trail, US President Barack Obama pointed out repeatedly and pertinently that some of the funds anonymously poured into elections could be from foreign sources, and that this was totally undesirable. Those generously funding his critics self-righteously proclaimed that they don’t use foreign funds for political purposes.
After the heat and dust of the election, some harsh facts are slowly emerging and causing grave concern. Some public-spirited and apparently non-aligned activists have dug up that well before the elections the insurance industry gave the US Chamber of Commerce $86 million to “campaign” against President Obama’s healthcare reform with a view to getting it defeated. Consequently, the insurance industry got no blame for the vigorous and often vicious ads the Chamber issued against healthcare reform. Anyhow, the reform somehow went through. Now the insurance and pharmaceutical industries have donated $138 million to get the healthcare plan repealed. This expenditure seems unnecessary because those who have helped the election of so many pipers have the right to call the tune.
In any case, to repeal “Obamacare”, as they derisively call it, is high on the agenda of the Republicans who now control the House. If they pass a law to remove the already adopted measure on healthcare from the statute book, the President can surely veto it. But he cannot compel the House majority to sanction funds necessary to make healthcare work. Mr Obama’s scheme enables millions of Americans who could never afford health insurance to get insurance cover for the first time. But the extent and the intensity of the American feeling against it is has to be seen to be believed.