Abuses in the electoral processes associated with American democracy often result in the passage of legislation and regulations that are represented to the public as “reforms” that will correct the problems. In fact, there is a relatively stable pattern of abuses, public outcry, and reform that many believe began in the early 1970s and continues to this day. Specifically, campaign financing and the role of big money in the electoral process has been the focus of many such reform efforts. Most recently, McCain-Feingold attempted to reign in “soft money” and issue ads—among other things—leading indirectly to the most significant change in American elections since sliced bread. Just over two years ago the Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission ruled, in essence, that corporations had the same rights as individuals to spend their own money as a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. Alas, we have witnessed the birth of the latest round of abuses and reforms that will dominate the money and politics debate for the next ten years (if we last that long).
The “baby,” the Super PAC, is the instrument being used by big money to influence the outcome of the 2012 federal election cycle. Donors are giving money to non-profit corporations that have been established to serve some basic cause, which in turn are collecting and funneling money to Super PACs that have been created to promote particular candidates. Because the donations are going directly to non-profit corporations donors do not have to be identified to the media or federal campaign finance regulators. In other words, anonymous money, the complete and absolute opposite of transparency and reform has found a welcome and protected place in American electoral politics. Any attempt to sell this as good for America can only be judged for what it is, the outright abandonment of one-person one-vote in the United States and the ascendency of government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. To claim as some have that there has always been a place for secrecy and privacy in American politics, citing examples such as the secret ballot and the use of aliases by the authors of the Federalist Papers can only be characterized as the most shameful sophistry. How’s this for an example of anonymity, wearing a white hood and sheet to protect my right to privacy? Why not, seems there are no limits after all.
What do you think? Is there any way to keep money from corrupting the political process? Is money an integral and unavoidable feature of democracy in the United States?
–DENNIS FALCON
Not that bored, and definitely need to be working on my prezi, but Wow, knowledge is power and i thank you. This blog is eye opening to the digression this country is in. Unfortunately this country is ran by men and men are competitive and ruled by greed ( at least the majority of men), so I don’t see things getting better until the “Second Coming!!!
its simple really, regulation, and transparency. regulate time on candidates time on tv, and allow an average american (20,000$)-(75,000$) to be the foundation of most of the funding for their choice candidate’s campaing. i also belive that technology must be more a part of the candiates, and allow people to have a secure source for information, no smear tactics, no manipulation of propositions, and unbias media videos. its time to take cnn, and fox news out of the voting booth!
I think what we the American people have to do is demand for a constitutional amendment that states that Corporations are not people and they do not have the right to spend money to buy politicians. Look at current candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. They do not represent us, they represent their corporate donors who give them millions of dollars for their campaigns and then promise them jobs after their term ends. This is why Bipartisan mostly exists when it comes to bills that will benefit corporations (ex. NDAA, PIPA, SOPA Etc). I remember you said in the lecture yesterday Mr. Falcon that one of the reasons the colonies revolted against the British was because they had taxation without representation. Well its 2012 and it seems that we still have taxation without representation.