America has the best government money can buy. There are two significant problems with that:
- Democracy (government of, by, and for the people), is not supposed to work that way.
- Most of us don’t have enough money to buy any government, we just pay for it.
The effect of money in US politics is centered around financial contributions to political campaigns with the expectation of political favors in return. These favors may take the form of legislation favorable to the donor, appointment to powerful positions in government, both, or one after another.
A political campaign is expensive. Although campaigns use many volunteers, they must hire political and policy experts, hire important core staff, rent office space, pay for communications such as telephone and internet, pay for transportation, lodging, event venue rental, security, and advertising. Tory Newmeyer estimated in a 2015 Fortune article http://fortune.com/2015/03/28/campaign-financing/ that a presidential campaign must have $10 million just to begin operation. The article states that campaigning in each of four example states will cost $6 million to $15 million. Using the average cost among those four states, one can expect a presidential campaign to cost around $263 million. However, in the 2016 presidential campaign, the contribution (and therefore spending) goal of one candidate is $1 billion! US congressional election campaigning is not quite as expensive. Various sources give a range of $4-21 million for a US House seat and $12-27 million for a US Senate campaign.
The majority of this money goes to purchasing “free speech.” Many enthusiastic and promising candidates have run out of money and quit before making serious progress.
This situation resolves to the ridiculous condition of the candidates of the parties, well-supported by the corporate powers that they represent, continually asking the common citizens, whom they do not represent, for money. This practice is apparently intended to give the common citizens that impression that they are participating in the political process.
Since the one who speaks the loudest is the one who attracts the most attention, it is easy to assume that the one who spends the most money on “free speech” gets elected. That is why the media constantly report the amount of money that various candidates have raised, with the implication that the one that has raised the most money will win. That is also why, even the progressives who are trying to avoid being bought but must still play in the same game as those who are, must continually ask for money, particularly as an FEC (Federal Election Commission) quarterly report deadline nears. That data will become fodder for the next round of media projections. People tend to abandon candidates based on media projections that are based on the amount of money that a campaign has raised and the spending rate of the campaign.
American elections have become popularity contests with limited substance. The media, along with other aspects of our society that promote limited attention span, limited substance, and instant gratification, benefits greatly. The sale of short, limited substance, advertising is lucrative, as is the promotion of the elaborate spectacle of “the debates.”
The effect of money on American politics has three elements.
The first element is an interpretation of the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, that effectively equates money with speech. Under that interpretation, not only is the press (which is, in the 21stCentury, the media) unrestricted, anyone with the money to purchase time or space in the press is unrestricted.
There are movements, such as WolfPac http://www.wolf-pac.com/ that are seeking to amend the constitution in a way that ends the Supreme Court’s interpretation that makes corporations people for the purpose of political contributions. That alone may not be effective. Rich people who are actually people may still influence politicians with campaign contributions.
A.J. Liebling stated “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.” Jim Morrison stated “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.” In America today, the people who own the government own a substantial part of the media, and virtually all of the media that is generally accessed by the majority of the people.
The second element is a campaign and election system that favors candidates with money. The more money a candidate has to spend, the more likely the candidate is to win, particularly if the candidate outspends the competition. The playing field must be level, providing a source of funding for serious campaigns, limiting or eliminating the cost of political advertising, and other means to take the influence of large campaign contributions out of politics. Leveling the playing field in this manner would probably face constitutional challenges as a violation of the first amendment. This amendment has already been interpreted to equate money with speech. Therefore, the second element of removing money from politics will probably also require a constitutional amendment or a broader version of the amendment proposed by those who want to overturn the Citizens United decision.
The third element is the trading of powerful, high income positions in business to politicians in exchange for political favors. It’s called the revolving door. A politician works to develop legislation that is favorable to a large corporation. The politician then gets a position in the corporation, generating substantial income and power. After that, the individual is appointed to a powerful position in government by another politician interested in starting a trip around the revolving door.
The three elements will not be easily fixed. They are too entrenched in our current system. We must, however, fix them if we are to return to the people being the government. An important first step is the support of progressive candidates who will not be bought. Unfortunately, even that will require a substantial amount of money from people who can’t afford to buy the government, at least, individually. With enough of them in office, laws may be written and developed that will fix all three elements of the problem. That will take time, but we must make the effort and employ the patience and tenacity needed to fix our broken political system.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” (Edward R. Murrow)
HW