Trump pledged yesterday to forego a salary if he would become President. Although it may be easy for him to do, it speaks to the strength of his proposition to the American people as a candidate.
American suspicion
It may be a moot point. For starters, he is not very likely to get the job. Besides, it’s an easy promise to make for him because he is filthy rich. But this is kind of besides the point. It does point to his appeal to many Americans who are fed up with the economic results that the current political system has produced. It is not because this particular cut in Federal expenditure is likely to balance the budget but because Americans are ever more suspicious of campaign finance and donations being used to ‘buy’ politicians and policy. It is something that liberals, outraged by the Citizens United case, should get behind.
The corruptness of politicians and public servants is of course a familiar notion and easy ammo for the populists on either side of the Atlantic. (And increasingly China as well – but I digress.) Many are understandably sceptical about the authenticity of Hillary Clinton’s pleas to curb Wall Street excesses, while major financial institutions are also her biggest donors and Clinton rakes in millions from private speaking engagements with big banks.
Revolving door politics
Although the influence of big party-donors on candidates, elections, and concrete policy may seem obvious, it is also hard to prove. Nevertheless, people are rightly very suspicious of ‘revolving door politics’ and the idea that members of Congress and even the executive are up for grabs. Think of former politicians landing cushy jobs at lobbying firms when they retire or get voted out of office. What about regulators who go to work at firms they once regulated? Or those who move from the private sector to government jobs with direct power over their old employers?
Citizens United
Campaign financing is a much-debated subject. Think of the controversial Citizens United case, where the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that for-profit corporations are protected by the First Amendment (that’s the clause in the US Constitution that explicitly guarantees freedom of speech much further than in most European countries) to give as much to political campaigns as they wish. This ruling replaced a 2002 Act that sought to limit companies’ political spending. (It was co-sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain and is commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act.) The idea is that giving money is an expression of free speech, which, according to the Supreme Court, also applied to corporations.
Big Business
Many voters, both Tea Partiers and Occupiers, are concerned about the influence of Big Business on political candidates through political spending. Trump’s pledge to forego a salary reminds voters of the fact that he is funding his own campaign and allegedly not accepting any donations from Big Business.
It is easy to cynically shrug off Trump’s promise to forego the $400,000 annual salary that the US President gets. Nevertheless, this is a very good reason for his electoral appeal. It is something that even ardent liberals should be able to get behind.
Jan van Ewijk's personal website 