On April 2, 2014 the Supreme Court of the United States delivered another blow to democracy in our country. In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the court ruled that individuals can contribute to as many political parties and candidates as they want.
I suppose the only saving grace from this decision is that the court did not strike down the actual per candidate/party contribution limits. Meaning that a private citizen can now contribute to 10, or 20, or even 30 candidates, but can still only give whatever that max contribution limit is to each candidate. However, I strongly believe it is only a matter of time before that those contribution limits are also struck down in the name of the 1st amendment.
Although one person still cannot directly fund a candidates entire campaign by themselves, this ruling has vast ramifications. It yet another crack in democracy that is enjoyed in this country. The essence of "one person, one vote" is being quickly replaced with, "more money, more voting power"
The vast majority of Americans do not have the financial means to contribute the max limit to justt one candidate, much less 20 of them. Due to the necessity of fundraising in our elections candidates are forced to follow the money. They have a strong incentive to listen to, help, or even be in service to the people that can fund their political ambitions.
The current system is consistently being tipped in favor of the super wealthy and away from middle-class America. While I doubt most Americans want to attack the free speech of their fellow wealthy citizens, there has to be a realization that the current trend in campaign finance law is inherently unequal.
One potential solution is to push for legislation which creates publicly funded elections. Each and every candidate would be given an allotted amount of taxpayers money, and a set amount of time to campaign. This would decrease the length of campaigns significantly, level the playing field for non-incumbent candidates, and present a better form of democracy for this country.
Unfortunately though, the powers at be have a strong incentive to not put forward such reforms. Incumbents have a significant advantage as of now and any new legislation, which they would have to pass, which would decrease their chances of re-election will probably not gain any significant traction in Congress.
So as of now our country will continue to endure long and expensive campaigns that provide little public good. Our televisions will be filled with attack adds for months on end and there will be the usual rounds of countless debates during the primaries. And at the end of it no one, neither the candidates or the public, will be better off.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your take on Federal Election Commission SCOTUS cases. Conglomerate campaign fundraising has been subject to a majority of past cases and stirred immense controversy because of inherent corruption potential, be it quid pro quo or simply skewing the perception of public opinion. While a publicly funded campaign system may not be politically feasible, it presents an ideal method to limit the effect that concentrated private wealths can have election outcomes. While the right to invest and endorse a campaign remains protected by the right amendment, legislation to restrict extreme cases would increase the potential for low income voters to compete in the political marketplace.
ReplyDeleteIts a tricky subject this. It seems like most of the other Western democratic countries don't have to put up with this and their election process is a lot more regulated. However America is different in the value it places on individual rights, and this seems to be where all of this is coming to a head. The Roberts Court has been treating these cases on the grounds of free speech, and have interpreted money to be a form of having your voice heard. The problem is as you mentioned, the wealth disparity in this country is greater than it has ever been, and those that benefit from this deregulation in spending are relatively few in numbers compared to the rest of Americans. This has been a cycle in American politics, elections become less and less deregulated and all of sudden a scandal breaks out. The last time money has flowed this freely during election time was Pre-Watergate, and all the subsequent reforms followed that scandal. The decades since have seen a slow but steady scaling back of these policies and it looks as if it will take another scandal for a shot at any type of reform.
ReplyDelete