Foreign collusion: Yup, it’s still bad
To most Americans, the idea of all-out, foreign competition for their votes is ludicrous. But President Trump recently dismissed criticism of his campaign’s collaboration with representatives of the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election with a glib “That’s politics!” His surrogates have argued that there’s nothing illegal about colluding with a foreign power.
To protect our hard-won constitutional prerogative to choose our own leaders, our laws make it illegal for campaigns to receive anything of value from foreigners with the purpose of influencing federal elections and for anyone to wittingly participate in a foreign power’s espionage operation against the nation. It’s unsettling to have to reaffirm this, yet doing so is now a necessity.
But let’s take Trump and his surrogates’ absurd claims at face value for a moment and consider how bizarre and destructive it could be if foreign powers really were welcomed to intervene in our elections.
For starters, it would be much bigger than Moscow. Various other nations would surely try to compete for control of America’s vast economic, military, and diplomatic power.
Foreign spies would hack candidates’ communications and leverage social media for the mass dissemination of misinformation. China, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba would be quick to join in, due to their ongoing disputes with Washington. Fearing despots’ influence over their most important ally, traditionally friendly nations would feel compelled to participate as well. Perhaps in defense of our liberty at first, but eventually in pursuit of their own parochial interests.
Campaigns would be free to follow Trump’s lead, encouraging, guiding, and perhaps fully collaborating in espionage against the republic. Politicians and other beneficiaries would cheer the change as “electoral modernization.”
Trump might be eager for Russia aid, yet surprised when German or French intelligence hacks his accountants’ computers and publishes his tax returns.
And if that were allowed, then certainly more transparent forms of foreign intervention would be too. Imagine how the nationalists in the Make America Great Again movement would react to Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto establishing a super PAC called “Una América” to fund candidates opposed to construction of a border wall. Or worse, that Peña Nieto has disseminated via conservative social media an “official” Mexican birth certificate proving that Trump was born in a small German village just outside of Acapulco.
Chinese President Xi Jinping might follow suit, directing billions to ads and campaign donations in support of loosening restrictions on foreign acquisition of American companies possessing national security technologies. “Free enterprise is the American way,” voters would hear him repeat continually in rehearsed Mandarin-accented English on their living room televisions in the evenings.
Countries would soon learn that they could get the most for their money by offering “patriotism incentives” directly to voters in swing precincts. Car sales and home values in these areas would surge, causing property tax revenue to do the same.
Recognizing the opportunity, municipal governments might host “freedom fairs” at local convention centers as a one-stop-shop for voters and foreign nations to connect and make a deal. Participating voters would justify their actions as free speech and shout, “Show me the money!” amid trading floor commotion.
Entrepreneurs could bundle votes and sell them for a premium to interested countries. After a couple of years of steady revenue and profit growth, Credit Suisse would underwrite the first “voter syndicate” IPO to excited public investors. Fox Business Channel commentators would herald the deal as a modern example of “American innovation.” Pension funds would increasingly rely on “voter securities” to meet targeted returns.
Foreign governments might spend so much on political advertising in key media markets that airtime prices would skyrocket, further increasing candidates’ reliance on foreign assistance. The value of individual Americans’ donations would decline to the point of worthlessness, as a new generation of wealthy American politicos and media executives emerged.
But external interference needs not reach this imaginary extreme to infringe the self-rule and sovereignty of the American people. Whether the aggressors are just Moscow, a few nations, or the whole world, foreign meddling in our democracy inhibits our control over our government. It impedes our ability to ascertain truth. It turns us against ourselves. It is anathema to the truth that we are inherently equal and free.
For liberty and for America, we must reject this menace and hold compromised leaders accountable now or risk our ability to ever do so.
Evan McMullin is a former CIA operations officer who ran as an independent during the 2016 US presidential election. Follow him at @Evan_McMullin.