Money, politics, and the future of American democracy.
he American political system is in the midst of a transformation. This change was not sudden, nor was it unpredictable. The role of money in our electoral process, political discourse, and our everyday lives has grown as our nation as aged. We are about the experience the most expensive Presidential race in the history of our country. This fact has consequences for everyone, but the poorest and most vulnerable of us will pay the largest price.
The democratic ideal of “one person, one vote” is now a thing of the past. Our electoral system demands that politicians raise enormous amounts of money in short periods of time. Failure to do so will result in an inability to compete, thus dooming the candidate to defeat. The money that candidates use for campaigning is collected from various sources such as political action committees (corporations and unions), fundraiser’s, and individual contributions.
The growing importance of money in political campaigns logically implies that the more capital a candidate has, the more votes he/she is capable of receiving. This means that the contributions that we as individuals give to the politicians we support are also of growing importance in the current electoral process.
This is a system that strengthens the influence of the rich in our society, and diminishes the role of the poor. It is well known (and has been proven) that money equals votes; therefore we can conclude that if I am a wealthy individual that chooses to donate a significant amount of money to a candidate I am not only letting him/her know that they have my vote, I am also guaranteeing them more votes. If I am a poor American however, my resources are limited and therefore my contributions to my candidate of choice will be limited, thus my influence is reduced.
In order to protect American democracy, we must promote the public financing of campaigns. While there is a system in place, the current laws governing our elections make it politically impossible for a candidate to accept these funds without starting the campaign at a disadvantage.
I understand that many view individual contributions as a free speech issue (including our Supreme Court) and therefore reject the idea of publicly financed campaigns. While I do understand this argument, I find it ethically troublesome that the rich have a more of a right to free speech than the poor. Especially at a time when income distribution is so lop-sided and our government continues to push for pro-corporate policies, and insists on cutting taxes for the wealthiest in our society.
It is also important to note that the poorest in our society make up the majority of our military. Should those brave individuals fighting and dying overseas have less of a voice than the wealthy at home in America enjoying their governmentally subsidized tax breaks?