The Culture of Corruption in American Politics
Today, corporate money pores into the campaign coffers of incumbents from both major parties. As special-interest dollars have gone up by the millions over the past 30 years, voter participation has gone down. In fact, turnout for American elections is no higher today than it was during the depression – with roughly only half the eligible voters casting ballots in presidential election cycles and one third casting ballots in congressional elections.
Corporate controlled elections along with our winner-take-all voting system (see https://www.voteforrest.org//content/view/23/69/) assure that few federal and statewide elections are competitive. More often than not, the outcome of most races is simply determined by which candidate raises the most money. Almost inevitably this candidate is an incumbent.
In the last two election cycles, two-thirds of incumbents spent at least 10 times more money on their campaigns than their rivals. The effects of unbalanced campaign financing and third party disenfranchisement are so significant in the US that the Center for Voting and Democracy was able to accurately predict the outcome of 99.7 percent of the U.S. House races in 1998 - 2004.
In California alone, 51 out of 53 congressional races were won by a landslide of 20% or most with incumbents heavily outspending opponents. Of the 101 incumbents that ran for reelection in 2002 – 2004, not a single one lost and 99 of these races were won with an overwhelming majority.
Needless to say, all of these elective offices were won by just two corporate parties - the Democrats and Republican.
While America’s voting system favors the formation of a two party monopoly, corporate financing of elections simple favors corruption. Without substantial campaign finance reform, voters will have less and less power to affect political change and little or no reason to vote.
While, reform attempts like McCain-Feingold may change the way corporations funnel money into campaigns, these changes are almost meaningless if nothing is done to limit campaign "spending" (since corporations can always fine loopholes to funnel cash into their supporters hands). Unfortunately, thanks to a 1974 Supreme Court decision, campaign expenditures are now considered a form of free speech – and that’s made all the difference.
Campaign Finance Reform and the Constitution
The concern over corporate influence of over electoral politics is not new. In fact, the public outcry against the excesses of political money in the 1968 and 1970 election cycles was so great that Congress finally decided to try and regulate campaign financing by passing the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).
The FECA revolutionized campaigning financing in four fundamental ways. First, it required candidates and politicians to file periodic reports of all contributions and expenditures, which would then be made available to the public. Second, it limited the amount of money a candidate could contribute to their campaign. Third, it set contribution limits on the amount individuals and PACs could contribute to a candidate. Finally, the act limited the "expedites" candidates could make for media purposes.
Unfortunately, the final version of the act passed in 1974 contained a provision, written by Conservative New York senator James L. Buckley, that gave private citizens the right to challenge the constitutionally of the law in court. On the first business day after the final version of the act was passed a broad based coalition of plaintiffs including Buckley, Senator Eugene McCarthy, liberal philanthropist Stewart Mott and tax-cut crusader Rep. William Steiger, raced to the federal courthouse to file what would be called Buckley v. Valeo.
While the Supreme Court upheld contribution limits and reporting requirements it struck down limits on spending and the amount candidates could contribute to their own campaigns. The court justified their decision on the grounds that campaign speech requires the spending of money and therefore the spending of money for speech is entitled to First Amendment protection.
The Buckley decision made the playing field worse for ordinary candidates by restricting their ability to raise money while allowing candidates to spend freely and entitling affluent candidates to contribute without limits to their campaign and removing all caps on spending.
The Buckley v. Valeo decision set the groundwork for the big-money funding schemes that dominates our political system today. Those peddling influence have found a number of schemes to get around contribution limits, including the formation of PACs, the bundling of contributions, and the spread of soft money advertising.
Reforms to keep corrupt money out of politics are rare and usually fail because they are full of loopholes. For example, the ban on soft money on corporations and unions passed by Congress in 2002 has simply resulted in the diversion of this money to permissible independent committees (e.g. 527 groups).
Political corruption and the influence of corporate lobbyist on political decision will only end when our political leaders fear angry voters more than they fear overturning the system that brought them into power.
Until then most Americans will be force to watch their pay-to-play democracy from the sidelines.
Dr. Forrest Hill is a candidate for California Secretary of State in the Nov. 7th election.
He is a research scientist, financial advisor, electoral reform activist and environmentalist. He has been a technical advisor for several government agencies including the California Department of Fish and Game and the Sonoma County Water Agency, and currently specializes in Socially Responsible Investing using investments for economic, social, and environmental transformation.
Print
Email
