Omar Bennett
The relationship between alcohol and politics has a long history, from the colonials' custom of treating or swilling the planters with bumbo to modern-day campaign contributions from the alcohol industry. In the present day, it is not uncommon for political campaigns to use excess funds to purchase alcohol, and records show that politicians have spent thousands of dollars of campaign money on alcohol, with little scrutiny. While the practice of using campaign funds to purchase alcohol is legal, it raises questions about the influence of special interests and the potential for corruption in politics.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Can a political campaign buy alcohol? | In the US, there is no federal law prohibiting political campaigns from buying alcohol. However, the use of campaign funds to purchase alcohol may vary depending on state laws and regulations. |
| Historical Context | In the early history of the US, it was common for political candidates to serve alcohol to voters during elections, which influenced voting decisions. This practice was known as "treating" or "swilling the planters with bumbo" (rum). |
| Modern Usage | While the practice of treating is no longer common, some politicians have been known to use excess campaign funds to purchase alcohol for various events and functions. These purchases are often justified as "public office-related expenses." |
| State-Level Variations | Different states have varying laws and regulations regarding the use of campaign funds for alcohol purchases. For example, Texas has specific provisions for "local option liquor elections", where voters can decide on legalizing or prohibiting the sale of liquor in their political subdivision. |
| Disclosure and Transparency | The use of surplus campaign funds for alcohol purchases has been associated with a lack of disclosure and scrutiny. In some cases, politicians have failed to provide proper expense reports, even when required by law. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Buying votes with alcohol
The concept of "treating" or "swilling the planters with bumbo" (rum) has been around longer than the United States itself. Early American political candidates would use alcohol to buy votes from the electorate. While "buying" is perhaps not the right term, serving alcohol was a friendly nudge to influence the vote. This was so customary that not serving alcohol was almost a guarantee of losing the election.
Robert Dinkin, author of "Campaigning in America: A History of Election Practices," notes that "if a candidate ignored the custom of treating, he often found himself in great difficulty". For example, when James Madison tried to campaign in 1777 without the influence of alcohol, he lost to a less principled opponent. By the time he was elected president in 1808, he had learned his lesson.
Voting laws eventually evolved to end treating. In 1811, Maryland passed the first campaign finance reform law, prohibiting candidates from purchasing alcohol for voters. Over time, states also began to ban the sale of alcohol on election day. Most have since dropped that practice.
Today, while politicians may not use alcohol to buy votes, they do use excess campaign funds to purchase alcohol for various functions, dignitary gifts, and attorney dinners. For example, Lt. Gov. Brad Owen spent about $760 from his surplus funds account at a liquor store, and Seattle politicians have been found to use campaign cash for alcohol, iPads, and clothing.
Kamala Harris' Property Portfolio: Private Homes and Public Office
You may want to see also
Alcohol industry campaign contributions
The alcohol industry, including beer, wine, and liquor producers, wholesalers, and distributors, remains active and engaged in the political arena. Campaign contributions from this industry experienced a midterm peak in 2018 with almost $18.6 million spent, marking the third-highest spending year after the presidential cycles of 2012 and 2016. In recent years, the industry has favoured Republican candidates, with 54% of contributions going to Republicans in the last two cycles. Democrats have not received a majority of funds since the 2010 election.
OpenSecrets, an organization that compiles data on campaign contributions and lobbying activity, provides insights into the financial influence of the alcohol industry. Their reports reveal that hundreds of millions of dollars flow into state and federal elections from political action committees (PACs) associated with the beer, wine, and liquor industry. These PACs contribute to candidates at the state and federal levels, including those running for the U.S. House and Senate races.
The alcohol industry's campaign contributions are not limited to official channels. "Dark money" groups affiliated with the industry spend millions of dollars on elections without disclosing the sources of their funds. This opaque nature of funding makes it challenging to trace the full extent of the industry's influence on political campaigns.
Additionally, it is worth noting that while the practice is less common today, historically, political candidates would use alcohol to "buy" votes from the electorate. This practice, known as "treating" or "swilling the planters with bumbo," involved serving alcohol to potential voters as a friendly gesture to influence their support. While voting laws have evolved to prohibit candidates from purchasing alcohol for voters, the historical connection between alcohol and political influence remains a part of America's electoral history.
Who Will Win the Election? Key Factors Deciding the Outcome
You may want to see also
Politicians spending excess campaign cash on alcohol
While it is not uncommon for politicians to use excess campaign funds for charitable donations or to forward the money to their political parties, some politicians have been known to spend the money on alcohol. Campaign-finance records show that some state politicians have used excess campaign cash to pay for alcohol, among other things. For instance, Lt. Gov. Brad Owen spent about $760 from his surplus-funds account at an Olympia liquor store, stating that the items were for various functions, dignitary gifts, and attorney dinners. Similarly, records show that since 2007, Republican State Rep. Mike Armstrong of Wenatchee has pulled $7,000 in campaign cash to buy clothing, while Democratic state Auditor Brian Sonntag used the money to buy more than $1,000 in Mariners tickets.
The spending is conducted with little scrutiny through so-called surplus accounts that rarely get public examination. While surplus accounts are intended to allow candidates a way to hold onto cash between elections and to provide politicians with options for how to properly disperse money that is not needed, the spending possibly tests the boundaries of state law. In fact, in 1811, Maryland passed the first campaign finance reform law, prohibiting candidates from purchasing alcohol for voters. Over time, states also began to ban the sale of alcohol on election day, although most have since dropped that practice.
Crafting Conclusions for Political Texts: Strategies for Effective Endings
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$108.2 $139.99
Local option liquor elections
In the United States, local option liquor elections allow registered voters to decide on the sale and consumption of alcohol within a particular area, typically a precinct. These elections have a long history, dating back to the early days of the republic and even before, when the custom of "treating" or offering voters alcohol as a form of influence was common. While this practice is no longer legal, local control over alcohol sales has persisted.
In Texas, for example, local option liquor elections have a long history, with records dating back to the 19th century. The current form of the local option law in Texas was adopted in 1891, although it was interrupted by state and federal prohibition from February 1918 to August 1935. Records of pre-Prohibition local option liquor elections can be found in county election registers, although these sources may be incomplete or lost. In such cases, old newspapers or historical archives can sometimes provide information on the date and outcome of these elections.
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code and the Texas Election Code govern local option liquor elections in the state. Amendments made in 2013 authorized new local option liquor elections to be held using current justice precinct boundaries. These elections give voters a direct say in the regulation of alcohol sales and consumption, allowing them to specify the types of alcohol available and whether it can be consumed on-premises, off-premises, or both.
While the specifics vary by state and locality, local option liquor elections continue to play a role in shaping alcohol policies across the United States. These elections reflect the ongoing public debate about alcohol regulation and give voters a direct voice in deciding the rules that govern their communities.
Who Funds Political Campaigns? Public Money, Public Knowledge
You may want to see also
Alcohol at political events
Alcohol has long been a part of American political events, from the colonial era to the present day. In the past, candidates would use alcohol to "buy" votes from the electorate, a practice known as "treating" or "swilling the planters with bumbo" (rum). Serving alcohol at polling places became an easy way to influence the vote, and those who did not serve alcohol were almost guaranteed a loss.
While voting laws have since evolved to prohibit this practice, with Maryland passing the first campaign finance reform law in 1811, alcohol continues to play a role in political events and campaigns. In modern times, politicians have been known to use excess campaign funds to purchase alcohol for various functions, including after-hours events for state staffers and dinners with attorneys. Additionally, the alcohol industry remains active in the political arena, making campaign contributions that have peaked during midterm and presidential election cycles.
The relationship between alcohol and politics in the United States is complex and multifaceted. While there have been efforts to curb the influence of alcohol in elections, such as banning alcohol sales on Election Day in some states, the cultural and historical ties between alcohol and politics persist. This is further evidenced by the high percentage of heavy drinkers in Washington, D.C., and the correlation between political beliefs and alcohol demand.
Furthermore, there have been several notable incidents of politicians being associated with excessive drinking, such as the Chappaquiddick incident involving Senator Teddy Kennedy, and Rudy Giuliani's inebriated advice to Donald Trump on election night. These incidents highlight the ongoing conversation around the social norms and accountability of politicians regarding alcohol consumption.
Kamala's Next Move: Predicting Her Future Plans
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, a political campaign can buy alcohol. Historically, candidates would use alcohol to influence votes, a practice known as "treating" or "swilling the planters with bumbo".
Yes, politicians can use excess campaign funds to buy alcohol. For example, Lt. Gov. Brad Owen spent about $760 from his surplus funds account at a liquor store. He reported that the alcohol was for functions, dignitary gifts, and attorney dinners.
Yes, candidates can use their own money to buy alcohol for their campaign. However, they may prefer to use campaign funds to avoid using their own money.
Yes, local election campaigns can also buy alcohol. The rules regarding the purchase of alcohol for political campaigns apply at all levels of government, including local, state, and federal elections.
![McKesson Isopropyl Rubbing Alcohol 70% [1 Count] USP First Aid Antiseptic, 32 oz](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61lYiXl9g9L._AC_UL320_.jpg)
