“The Appeal”: Fiction or Prediction?
I’ve been reading “The Appeal” by John Grisham, a page-turner published in 2008 but suddenly far more relevant to the political news than it was two years ago. I haven’t finished it yet, so I couldn’t give away the ending even if I wished, but I’m betting that the previously obscure small-town lawyer who is campaigning for the state Supreme Court is going to hear the call of conscience and, once on the bench, will turn against the corporate interests who are investing $3,000,000 in his election so he can get them out of some pesky toxic chemical pollution law suits.
The novel takes place in Mississippi but holds a lesson for Pennsylvania, where we also elect Supreme and Superior Court justices. For anyone who wasn’t paying attention (and few did), we elected some of those last fall. The R’s won, the D’s lost, I’s don’t ever have much chance to run for positions like judge. You might ask, what does party affiliation have to do with making a good judge, what clue does the voting public have anyhow about judicial qualifications, and why should money determine the outcome of an election?
Maybe those good questions are the morals of the book, we’ll see; as a former member of the Mississippi state legislature, Grisham knows plenty about politics to give an informed opinion. We do know that political races have become expensive–something like $300,000 for state legislature and millions for Congress–and are about to become much more so.
The US Supreme Court ruling on January 21 essentially allowed corporations and similar organizations (not, at least for now, tax-deductible non-profits) to spend as much as they want on their own ads or other expenses (just not contributions directly to candidates) in order to affect the results of political races.
So Grisham would not have written “The Appeal” in 2010. There would be no point: the whole plot depends on the illegality of the chemical manufacturing corporation’s scheme to buy an election. Without the illegality, there would be no excitement, just business as usual. The Roberts court, by the usual 5-4 vote, just killed the movie (I hope some producer hasn’t already sunk millions into it!).
Who, in 2008, would have thought that the novel portrayed the good old days of campaign financing, when buying elections, though clearly a way of life, had to be usually, sort of, discreetly undercover?
Till now, the purchased official was expected to go through the motions of saying: “Donations make no difference, I just vote for the best interests of the American people and the citizens of this great state.” Now why bother? Teams and stadiums proudly advertise their sponsors; why not politicians? I’m sure the honorable Merck member of congress and the honorable Goldman Sachs senator will agree.
Will the public worry about this? For an acerbic view of the Supreme Court decision, see the “New Supreme Court Robes” cartoon at Daniel Kurtzman’s About.com - Political humor:
