After the 2012 election cycle that was characterized by unprecedented campaign budgets and unparalleled spending, pundits and citizens alike were shaking their heads. Although $6,285,557,223 had been spent, people questioned why. Despite the breathtaking amount of money that poured into these campaigns, the political surface appeared starkly similar: President Obama was reelected, while the Democrats retained the Senate, and the Republicans continued to control the House of Representatives. In an interview with Rolling Stone, James Carville proclaimed, “We all freak out that the money in politics is going to change everything. As it turned out, it really didn’t change much.” Sadly, Carville is wrong.
2012 epitomized how current-day politics operate, which includes disturbing implications for the average voter. While money has always played a part in politics, the situation now is far worse than at any other point in history. With costly campaigns, Super PAC domination, and Citizens United repercussions, there now exists a growing inequality of political power that prioritizes the wealthy at the expense of the average voter.
Abraham Lincoln once spoke of, “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” He was emphasizing how democracy relies on an equality of participation by all citizens who are similarly invested in and responsible for their government. The founding fathers began the Constitution by expressing the pressing need for all citizens to be involved in their government. In James Madison’s famous Federalist Paper #51, he articulates that “a dependence on the people is…the primary control on the government.” Yet, with all the money in politics currently, Lincoln’s words are just empty rhetoric, and Madison’s notion of government is just a fallacy. The real question to consider today is not what most characterizes our democracy, but rather whether or not the United States has become a de facto plutocracy.
Money Wins So People Listen
Candidates start seriously campaigning many months, even years, before their next election for a reason: victory and campaign funds are inextricably linked together. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2012 election cycle, the candidate running for a Senate seat who spent the most money won 79 percent of the time; for a House seat, the candidate that spent the most won 94 percent of the time. Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice and former Director of Speechwriting for President Bill Clinton, explained to the HPR, “Members of Congress spend a phenomenal amount of time fundraising.” The reason for constant campaigning—for example, newly elected Democrats spend around four hours per day fundraising—is this evident connection between campaign funds and election results.
Winning an election does not just require money—it demands a treasure trove. In fact, the price of working in the Capitol building has never been higher. Maplight Foundation, a nonpartisan research organization, reports that the members of the 113th Congress who won an election spent on average $1,689,580 to gain a House seat and $10,476,451 for one in the Senate. Such profligate spending dwarfed American median household income, which stood at $51,017 in 2012, according to U.S. Census Bureau.
If such a discrepancy exists between average household income and the cost of winning an election, where does all that money come from? Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law School professor, reveals the answer in his book, Lesterland. The tiny 0.26 percent of the entire population that donated over $200 in the 2012 congressional election cycle is not chiefly responsible; most of the money came from those who donated $2,500 or more, or 0.05 percent of citizens. Thus, 99.95 percent of all voters cannot truly influence the political system. It is not shocking then that a CNN poll indicated that 86 percent of Americans believe that “elected officials in Washington are mostly influenced by the pressure they receive on issues from major campaign contributors.”
The numbers do not lie. Since candidates desperately need an exorbitant amount of money to win election, they listen to and will follow the wishes of those that can help finance them the most. Paul Jorgensen, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas – Pan American who works on campaign finance data, calculated that the per capita contribution of the 1 percent is more than ten times the per capita contribution of the 99 percent. It is therefore not that surprising Mr. Waldman asserted that “the issues addressed by the system palpably tilts toward the interests of the donors.”
Maplight tracks how the amount of money spent on a bill influences the votes of legislators, and a correlation exists between contributions given to members by invested interest groups and the outcome of legislative votes. For example, S.744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, passed in the Senate by a vote of 62-38. Unsurprisingly, Maplight found that organizations and industries in support of the bill gave $138,548,850, or about 54 times as much as those that opposed. Whether you support the bill or not, nobody can deny the obvious impact of money. According to the New York Times, in July 2013, Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) introduced a bill to “remove a federal rule intended to prevent banks from issuing mortgages to customers who could not afford to repay the debt received,” which was essentially a $500 million tax break for big banks. Since coming into office six months earlier, Barr had received $150,000 in donations from political action committees of the financial industry.
PAC Reign Supreme
Although PACs have existed since the late 1940s, they were supersized following two court cases in 2010: the now infamous Citizens United and Speechnow.org v. FEC. Once corporations and unions were able to make unlimited contributions (as a result of Citizens United) to independent expenditure-only groups (courtesy of Speechnow), money started pouring into politics. According to the FEC, independent expenditure-only groups refers to any spending “expressly advocating the election or defeat of clearly identified federal candidates” and must be made without any connection to the candidate, candidate’s campaign, or a political party. Waldman noted, “Citizens United didn’t start the problem of money in politics, but it did accelerate it.”
Since candidates align themselves with certain Super PACs, people, corporations, and unions are now able to donate enormous sums of money to elect their candidate and in doing so implement policies for their benefit. As a result, moneyed interests now fund candidates’ campaigns, which mean that they have substantially more power and influence in the political system than an average voter. Whether it was Sheldon Adelson and Newt Gingrich, Foster Friess and Rick Santorum, or Jeffrey Katzenberg and Barack Obama, the 2012 election cycle was an endless narrative of the ultra wealthy making tremendous contributions to try and ensure victory for their chosen candidate.
Despite public disapproval of Super PACs, they are a salient feature of today’s election cycle with no seeming chance of going away. Sunlight Foundation calculates that the independent expenditures of Super PACs in the 2011-2012 cycle was $620,559,129, and that Super PACs have already spent $11,967,407 for the 2014 cycle. Professor Lessig noted in an article for The Atlantic that in the 2012 presidential election, of the $240,009,876 spent by Super PACs, “.000063 percent – 196 Americans – [had] given more than 80 percent.”
Because of the murky relationship between Super PACs and candidates, any rich individual can supplant the democratic system by personally financing a group, immediately gaining access to and priority with the candidate. A voter with equal or greater enthusiasm but a less impressive bank account might get a handshake at a rally.
So Now What?
Politicians on their own are not going to resolve the enormous problem of the undue influence of money. We witnessed that in New York when a vote on publicly-funded elections failed despite support from Governor Andrew Cuomo and endorsements from celebrities (Alec Baldwin and Jason Alexander) and several editorial boards of New York newspapers including the New York Times. As a result, it is up to the voters to regain the voice they have lost. A variety of proposals currently circulate that could fix the disparity in political power that results from different funding capabilities; whether it is reform by legislation, a Constitutional amendment, or publicly funded elections, people must unite around the cause and demand change. It is worth noting that in California, through legislation and referenda, now non-partisan primaries, 12-year term limits, and independent commissions that draw congressional district lines are the norm. These changes might affect how money is spent in California politics. Yet, in order to fully reclaim the idea of one person, one vote the influence and ubiquity of money in the political system must be lessened. The time has come for people to stand up and demand an equal say in politics.
Image credit: Committee for Economic Development
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.