Should Corrupting Money Stop The Vote?
An Answer To A Concern. OPINION
Many people find the NO campaign’s objection to participating in self-governance (elections) a good reason. Money warps the process and burdens the candidate, so shouldn’t we avoid the problem by delegating our right to vote to an unelected appointee?
Let me explain why this objection is subjective, anecdotal, and impractical.
The Supreme Court has ruled, good or bad, that money is political speech and here to stay. Money is a thing and neither good nor bad. It is inanimate and doesn’t make moral decisions. People do that; spoons don’t make me fat, guns don’t kill people, and pencils don’t misspell words. Candidates come moral, immoral, or somewhere in between. Money is money, but the temptation to misuse it belongs to the individual. Temptation can come from special interests like the Real Estate industry, not seating methods. How their mark gains office is irrelevant.
Candidates cloak immorality behind marketing campaigns, obscuring their records and avoiding being vetted. The hope is no one will participate in the process and look the other way. Our system was designed for participation, not proxy- “Madam, you have a Republic if you can keep it.” The difference between candidates and appointees is public accountability. Appointees dodge public scrutiny, but appointment doesn’t make them moral as some suggest- it obscures their morality. The easy bet on the taxpayer is he will quickly lose interest. For the taxpayer, it's like ignoring a gallstone.
If money corrupts elections, it is true for any process. Truth is truth. Indeed, it is then true of appointments. Both methods are inanimate- the mortality stems from those participating, not the process. The No campaign claims the election process corrupts. It is easy enough to see corrupt people campaign. This principle, true as it may be, inadvertently implicates the current elected BOS as corrupt. Therefore, it follows their appointments are corrupt. A famous Jewish carpenter once said a corrupt tree can only produce corrupt fruit or no fruit at all. This is the truth, and NO campaign stands on it.
Money is required to run campaigns and elections. That is why both Hanover Democrat and Republican party units raise cash. You will not hear their logic in their fundraising: “We cannot reelect Scott Wyatt because our raised money will corrupt him, so please send your kind thoughts and prayers. Flowers would be nice.” This is a great example of situational ethics and pragmatism; if you know a little theology, you know both lead to immorality. Immorality also follows referendum campaigns. Campaigns lie. The end justifies the means.
We can take this absurdity a little further to demonstrate the point:
We accept medical help even though liberal money corrupts medical schools (cultural Marxism is rampant in medical schools). We don’t abandon cars for horse and buggy because money corrupts repair estimates or because the automotive industry has lobbyists. We do not forgo having a dog because of anecdotal stories about rabid skunks in the next county, worrying they may get rabies even if they are vaccinated… ‘it is still possible, you know!’
So what about money? Is it already here? Yes.
Our School Board commands 40% of the county budget or approximately 230 million bucks. That’s a lot of money in the political appointment system our friends are not mentioning. The appointee owes their appointment to the elected supervisor that appoints them. That is politics. The NO side insists that politics and money are corrupt, and here is both money and politics. We are led to believe one has no corrupting influence on the other because you and I didn’t vote. It seems somewhat insulting to me.
What other corrupting money floats around the school system?
Indeed, the Gifted and Talented program qualifies for State or Federal dollars- a lot of them. Lunch policies bring in dollars. The “Leader in Me’ program sold off children’s data to a shady out-of-state entity from Beaverdam Elementary and other Hanover Schools for a lot of money. Many parents strenuously objected to this before the current School Board and were ignored. The Appointees don’t answer to parents. The appointees respond to those who reward them with full-time Medical benefits worth a lot of money. If memory serves, this began based on Bucky Stanley’s friendship with his long-time and often controversial appointee, John Axselle. It’s a great deal if you can get it, but few in the real world are awarded such a deal for part-time work.
Contract awards for new buildings and maintenance are big money. In the past, these have been awarded as no-bid contracts to popular local companies and are worth millions. As I understand it, federal law prohibits no-bid contracts involving federal dollars, and grant money is a big incentive to local school systems, from curriculum to buildings.
The money objection fails to be objective because it obscures the present influence of money. It is anecdotal because it casually steers the reader past current negative aspects of the impact of money on the people who run the system now. It is impractical because it infers a mythical change of nature in appointing vs electing a person as if making them holy.
I do not intend to change your decision one way or the other. None of my articles claim the sky will fall if a particular outcome manifests. I plan to find the facts and clear away the distractions and spin so we can make our own decisions without fear or railroading.
This referendum is not about the seating method but about accountability. The seating method won’t change much- the schools will still gravitate towards liberalism as they do now. The difference, though, is in obtaining accountability: public scrutiny and the ability to dismiss board members who defy the values of Hanovarians. I have repeatedly proven that the appointees have failed to protect our values, and, as in the Leader in Me issue, there was no way to hold them accountable. The Supervisors didn’t intercede on the public’s behalf. No vote, no accountability.
The behavior of the appointees is perfectly human and is to be expected when we prefer personalities over principles and there is no accountability. The right of self-governance is not perfect, but it is a damn sight more perfect than the princely conferring of power to individuals who remains above and beyond the will of the people. ‘But John, new people are rolling on the board, and things will be different.’ That is relying on personalities and personalities change.’
Sure, they may do a decent job for the time being. But they are also subject to the temptations to hold onto the perks and control of a lot of money, which means they can make future decisions on expediency (job security), they have in the past.
Remember- the NO side says we must acknowledge that money and elections corrupt- (condemning our elected officials). The truth is no one is immune from temptation or corruption by a method of seating. I’ll vote for accountability but not a myth.
Five & Dime VA/HCC is an opinion blog employing satire, commentary, and facts to entertain and convey my opinions on religious, cultural, and political issues.
I expect you to know the difference.
Money in Hanover schools, including Beaverdam Elementary:
http://www.hanoverconservativecaucus.com/2018/01/beaverdam-elementary-school-sends-36000.html?m=1&view=classic
http://www.hanoverconservativecaucus.com/2016/12/leader-in-me-and-big-data-no.html?m=1&view=classic
