Money in Politics, or, The Main Issue

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories." – Thomas Jefferson

Nearly everything about elections in the United States is wrong. I don’t necessarily mean that I think the outcome is wrong, or that any particular party in power is wrong, or that the people who have been elected into office are wrong, though all of these certainly apply in many cases. I assert that the entire framework in which elections currently occur is wrong. Our Federal Republic form of government, as framed by The Constitution, is designed to have the will of the people manifest itself in the actions of their elected officials, with checks and balances to ensure the source of power remains with the public. I submit that this is no longer what is happening in our country; our electoral process is broken. The effects of this dysfunction have a global reach, and a serious overhaul is needed to prevent the power we give to our leaders from being used to corrupt ends.

Let me start by describing the correct way for a Democratic process to work. The best Democracy I can imagine would be an ever-evolving system with a permanent core tenant of power deriving from the people. As long as there is appropriate, fair, and equal representation with the best interest of the citizens, the nation, and the world at heart, the system would pass my test. Thomas Jefferson, I think, had the same idea:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

The current United States governmental system does not fit this description. Representation in the House of Representatives is skewed by gerrymandered districts and the nuances of population by State. Restricted and denied access to voting runs rampant in many States, mostly disenfranchising those with less money. It is clear to me from these points alone that the once-fair system has been tampered with and no longer works to represent every citizen equally, but we haven’t even really started yet.

Unfortunately, there’s a different, arguably contributing problem that makes the previously mentioned issues of voter inequality seem fair. That problem is, of course, the exorbitant amount of money in politics. Lobbying is an asset to our governmental system, and it’s supposed to work like this: a group of people with a similar goal hire someone to try and convince lawmakers to side with them. What has happened to this seemingly innocent program is it has been transformed from a way to have people’s opinions heard and counted in Congress, to a way to have companies’ interests heard and counted in Congress, usually through high-dollar-contributions to campaigns. Let’s step through this process with an example, right after this Jefferson quote:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

ConglomoCorp is a fake company that sells wooden backscratchers. It has 100 employees, and has $100 million every year in revenues. At the top, there is one CEO, who keeps $34.6 million a year, and at the bottom, there are 40 laborers, who split $4.2 million a year. As it turns out, the Laborers want to start a Union to make sure their rights are protected. They pool all their annual earnings ($4.2 million) and back a candidate who agrees that if elected, she will represent their interests in Congress. Catching wind that such a policy would actually force him to pay higher salaries and provide better benefits to his employees, the CEO backs the opposing candidate, but he only spends $10 million of his $34.6 million annual cut.  With more resources, that candidate manages to persuade the majority of voters (even those who don’t benefit, or are even harmed by the proposed legislation) and he wins. In this scenario, the interests of the few haves become better protected than the many have-nots.

Once in office, it is time to repay favors, to be sure, and follow through on promises made during the campaign. However, with no term limits for members of Congress, there is always the next election. This means that same deal can be made again and again on new issues. Public opinion is persuaded this way and that with sensationalized ads, quotes taken out of context, staged “debates” which are clearly unfair and biased, and most frustratingly, flat-out lies. The result of this system is that the interests of the mega-rich have substantially more representation per capita than the rest of us. One of those interests is for them to remain mega-rich, so they pay for policy that is good for their own profits. The side-effects of this cycle of events are detrimental.

Let’s revisit ConglomoCorp for a moment. Now they’ve expanded their business and have 1,000 lumber mills where trees are turned into backscratchers. These mills all contribute to Climate Change by reducing the amount of carbon-absorbing vegetation, and also increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. In fact, there are many thousands of businesses doing the same thing, as a byproduct of the business they conduct. When scientists point this out, they use their overwhelming spending power to persuade the public that the jury’s still out, that it isn’t happening, or that it’s actually happening in reverse, using every non-scientific method of persuasion in discrediting attempts. Eventually, they win enough support, both in Congress and with the public, that their practices are allowed to continue, unabated.

Problems with our government are many-layered, and it can be difficult to connect the dots.  I’ll try to step through these problems that I’ve laid out, in a succinct way.  Our government is doing things wrong.  They are allowed to do so because they have the support of the majority of their constituents. This majority is mostly bought and paid for by the mega-rich when resources are used to sway public opinion with methods that are misleading at best, but can also be downright evil. It seems to me that power in this country still technically stems from its people, but the ways in which that power flows are being manipulated by money without morality.

So what needs to change? How can we go back to a system that is fair, balanced, and (most importantly) truthful? One way to go about this would be through education. If everybody were able to see through the conniving of the mega-rich, their tactics to empower themselves and disenfranchise others, they would be less successful at swaying public opinion to their side. Education is empowering in that an educated voter can determine what candidates actually have their best interest at heart. The next time you notice anything that is keeping America stupid, keep this in mind: the dumber we are, the more power we inadvertently give to people who take power away from us. T-Jeff, hit us again:

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion."

The trouble with that, though, is that supplying citizens with better education costs time, money, political capital, and also depends on certain other social injustices getting better first. Not to mention that all of these prerequisites are naturally opposed by those who benefit from, and prefer our ignorance of, this broken system.

So maybe education is more of a long-term goal. What could we do right now? I believe our founding fathers have the solution: fair and equal representation for all citizens. In order to get back to what they intended, we cannot allow for unequal representation, and that inequality is fueled by the money in politics. I’m talking about the actual real money, in the form of campaign contributions, and also of the sly pseudo-money, such as certain legislation that will definitely benefit a company, or disproportionate airtime for topics, issues, and people involved in politics in any way. See John Oliver’s Climate Change debate for a hilariously depressing lesson in how dystopian political news has become.

Money in politics, as used to sway public opinion and buy legislation, inherently represents the rich more than the poor. I believe that political campaigns should all be run on an exactly level playing field. A set amount of every elected official’s budget should be allocated towards their campaign. That amount should be small, and that amount should be all. No other contributions, from their own pocketbook or from that of any other person, group, or entity should be allowed. ALL news sources, as defined by public opinion (and not by the FCC) should be held accountable for following some form of regulation such as the Fairness Doctrine, through which they must present issues in an honest, equitable, and balanced way. Note: I intend to delve deeper into this topic eventually. For now, just know that national news networks identify as “entertainment” which allows them to be as biased as they please. With these main pathways of money in politics blocked off, the main sources for persuading public opinion unfairly will be gone, or at least seriously hindered. What remains is the public, their actual opinions, the facts, and fair and equal representation.

It may be that this opinion of mine is unpopular, perhaps even unheard of or unconsidered. It may also be that this idea of removing the power of money from politics would be wildly supported by the population, but those who currently have power (from that system) have somehow persuaded the majority not to support it. Maybe people are complacent, and assume that this system has worked pretty well for over 200 years. There is nearly nothing worse than going against the founding fathers, right? I mean, just look at this other Tommy J. quote: "[G]overnments… should not be changed[.]"

Sorry, that was a trap. Now look at those words in context:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes... But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is [the people's] right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security" - Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776

Right there! It is our duty to change the government if it gets too shitty (Note: lol “dooty, change, and shitty”). It’s in the goddamn Declaration of Independence! I have seen the processes through which these would-be tyrants gain and maintain their power. I’ve seen them use that power to gain more power. It is exactly “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object” (political power), and you betcha, the overall design is to reduce the power of the people such that it is less than that of the rich. Get ‘em, Teej!

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor"

Socioeconomic disparity is only one of the myriad problems facing our country. I think the larger problem is that the system that was set up to fix the problems has been tainted. Unfortunately for the mega-rich and their cohorts on the inside, the cat’s out of the bag. They continue the game, shooting money through their channels to quiet, discredit, and distract from the issue. However, for the first time in a long time, I see a ray of hope for the end of this cycle.

Recently, the topic of campaign funding for Presidential hopefuls has fought its way to public awareness. There’s a list of top contributors to each campaign, and everyone’s but Sanders’ is filled with loathsome ConglomoCorp-esque donors. I’m not saying he’s necessarily the best candidate for the job, but I am quite pleased that his style of politics gets covered. Now, the reason this information surfaced may have been someone’s political agenda to discredit Clinton and the Republicans, and/or to garner more support for Sanders. In a cutthroat competition like the presidential race, I wouldn’t put it past any of ‘em. However, I like to believe that the reason this topic is being talked about is because the people, the actual, real-life people, and not the majority in a poll whose opinion was pounded into their brains by people who wanted that opinion to be there…the people in this country are generally smart enough to see that this kind of money in politics could be a bad thing. The people are well-enough informed about the wrongdoings of our government in the past, it has betrayed our trust many times before, so it is well within reason to believe that the entire system could be rigged against us.

I only think very mediumly about these types of things, so I don’t have much evidence to say that the system really is this fucked up. However, I think there’s enough to posit that it could be this fucked up. And if a bad thing either could happen, or is already happening, isn’t that enough to work towards its termination? I tend to think so, and thus, I’ve written this for you to read and decide for yourself. Remember that anything anyone says, myself included, should be taken with a grain of salt, because the true motive behind the words could be different from the motive you perceive, or even different from the motive the speaker thinks is their own. Take me out, Thomas.

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day"