BIG MONEY: The Dilution of Integrity in American Politics
Throughout elections in America, the amount of money campaigns raise at the hands of various mediums cannot be fathomed by most. Elections tend to be a financial game in which the political campaigns that bring in more than their opponents are the campaigns who are fortunate enough to win elections.
The United States and its citizens have begun to realize how important and effective campaign financing has become in the grand scheme of elections and in turn, the entire political system. They have realized how candidates are able to manipulate virtually every aspect of their image, influence, and political prowess via the large amounts of money that is contributed to their campaigns.
It is in the best interest of the United States’ government to push forward with campaign finance reform and the types of financial influences that correlate with political power and holding office.
Throughout American history, campaign financing has never been a significant issue up until the last fifteen to twenty years. Therefore, the government had no viable reason to challenge something that was not particularly an issue. However, the relevancy of the topic today has led to the Supreme Court’s interference in the matter.
The most significant court case in regards to campaign finance was decided by the Supreme Court in 2010. A non-profit cooperation, Citizens United, released a documentary using their own funds involving then-New York Senator Hillary Clinton and her possible DNC nomination for the 2008 Presidential Election. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, this act by any cooperation was prohibited. Feeling as though this was against Citizens United’s right to the First Amendment, they challenged this ruling in all levels of court. The key issue of the case was whether or not corporate spending on matters involving political elections of candidates was constitutional.
The decision by the Court determined that corporations virtually have the same rights to free speech as the individual has; and furthermore can contribute their money how and to whom they deem fit. The justices against the decision understood the impact such a decision could have on the dynamic of political elections in the United States. They were right, because of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission; corporations and billionaires are able to contribute large amounts of money to any candidate or political party they would want to hold office. And thus, allow them to lobby and gain political control over elected officials in spite of their large and generous donations. Or, in the same manner, they could adequately deface the character of opponents running against their preferred candidate.
Unfortunately, with these rulings, corruption has been the leading problem of the entire debate. Candidates are being manipulated, advised, and controlled by donators, both Super PACs and individuals. Many Senators, Congressmen, and Congresswomen continue their operations and lobbyist-controlled agendas from the money given by these donators and have no choice but to cater to their interests. To illustrate just how much influence donations can truly have, the Senate Majority PAC membered by Senators of both major parties raised close to $67 million in 2014. Most of that money is not used to fund progression of the nation as a whole but for the pockets of the same individuals you voted for.
Many political scientists see the rulings of these cases as a win for the individual rights and freedoms granted to Americans by the Constitution. However, it is only pragmatic to view this ruling for the atrocity that it truly is; a decision that has had grave consequences on our political integrity as a country. The rise of money in American politics and the ability for contributions to have no price ceiling has led to the decline in trust and political efficacy in the United States. With these rulings, political contributors can now “knock themselves out” with the giving and have no motivation to stop doing so; as it almost guarantees their agendas are met with ease.
A big question today, as the consequences of Citizens United have come to fruition, is how long will this carry on into the future? Political scientists across the country believe that a reform is necessary to quell the negatives of campaign finance and more or less gain back the integrity of politics in doing so. There are also political scientists who believe that a reform is necessary but believe it is too late to do so.
Regardless of your stance on the issue, the middle ground is that something needs to be done about the role it plays on American politics. Will we allow wealthy individuals and corporations continue to have a significant play on policies both domestic and abroad? In the future, is anyone going to be allowed to place politicians in their pockets and gain substantial influence?
There are many different answers to those questions but I argue to say that they are worth being answered. The direction of the campaign financing issue will determine who is in office and who has influence for years to come. Unless challenged in the future, We the People are in danger of permanently inheriting a country bought and controlled solely by the wealthy.
