Money in Politics
In 2010, campaign funding made a huge change with the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United basically argued that campaign donations are covered under the First Amendment as a freedom of speech and cannot be suppressed. The case went all the way the Supreme Court and in a 5 to 4 decision, the majority ruled in favor of Citizens United since allowing PACS and Super PACS to accept unrestricted amounts of money in donations which could be donated by individuals, corporations and special interest groups. These PACS and Super PACS are accepting unlimited amounts of monies from businesses and wealthy individuals in an effort to buy elections. In Justice Roberts opinion he stated that campaign donations are in fact covered under the First Amendment including corporations and special interest groups.
Critics, including then President Obama, argued that the decision opens the U.S. to foreign monies which could mettle in our elections. Fast forward to the 2016 presidential general election. Donald Trump won the election and donations totaled $450 million dollars to his campaign while donations to Hilary Clinton’s campaign total $845.9 million dollars.1 When we look back further at past general election campaign donations we see Mitt Romney’s campaign was donated $650.5 million dollars while President Obama’s campaign received $863.4 million dollars in donations.1 In the 2008 general election John McCain received $210.0 million dollars and Barack Obama received $753.5 million.1 Generally speaking, with the exception of Donald Trump in 2016, the campaign that receives the most donations will win the election. Americans know there is a problem with amount of money candidates receive. Americans are concerned that the more money a candidate receives from corporations, the more the candidate will feel indebted to the corporations who ask for special treatment.
With the 2018 mid-term election now upon us, we find yet another record-breaking election cycle of $5.2 billion. Yes, that was BILLION with a ‘b’. We have to wonder if increasing campaign donations is really in the best interest of America. In an MSNBC/CBS poll, 84% of those polled believe that money influences elections far too much, 46% feel campaign funding should be completely overhauled and 66% believe the wealthy heavily influence elections.2
Rick Hasen, a campaign finance regulation expert said there are too many well needed changes to the current system and they cannot all be changed by the next election so the changes will have to made incrementally.2 He goes on to say voters want change but the elites do not want changes to the system.2 Hasen’s statement validates the heavy influence of the wealthy in American elections. The government wants to separate church and state but allow the mingling of the wealthy and elections.
The majority of the founding fathers and the Continental Congress were wealthy and/or influential business owners who were particularly harmed by the heavy taxation of England. With that said, we must concede that the wealthy has always influenced our country. But, what is the difference between then and now? For one, our founding fathers were seceding from England for the notion of liberty, honest representation and equality for all. And two, the founding fathers did not have the advantage of mass media to promote their beliefs. Their media was that of newspaper articles in which the author was bound by ethics to report the truth or be held accountable for falsehoods. Politicians had to rely upon building a reputation based on their good character developed over time rather than thirty second commercials sponsored by corporations, groups and the candidates themselves. Commercials that convolute and misrepresent the issues. The founding fathers also had to solve the issues of approximately 2.5 million people, not 327 million people today. Generally speaking, political ethics are much different today and we do not allow dueling when one politician challenges the character of another.
Like many issues facing us today, American politics is a broken system. We face misrepresentations made by candidates, between candidates and by the media. We have far more convoluted information and online debates by misinformed citizens that fuel divide than ever before. We are experiencing a time when the information we are given is questioned but still believed and that belief causes strife and even physical harm to opposing beliefs held by others. So, how is the problems with our political brokenness exacerbated by vast amounts of money being funneled into our political system?
In our 242-year history, American politics has slowly allowed a quid pro quo system (something for something) to evolve. Even the most ethically intended politicians have fallen into the world of passing laws in order to receive campaign dollars and become career politicians. These actions have become more selfish motivated than selfless. Ethics have been abandoned and new “ethics” has developed. This abandonment or formation of new “ethics” has led to the replacement of more powerful corporations, wealthy individuals and politicians who have their own wealth and power agendas. Campaign donations have done nothing else but place the donors in the back pockets of our politicians and beholding to the donors. This beholding has kept the poor, poor and even poorer and the rich, rich and even richer. We have allowed our politicians to prostitute themselves out to the highest bidder.
Sociologist Max Weber defines power as the ability to control others through punishment and/or rewards.3 This power can control others to the point they may do things they normally would not do such as distort the truth, accept money knowing they are expected to do something in return and others. This is how the beholding to donors comes in. When a donor gives large amounts of money to a particular candidate with the expectation that the candidate, if elected, will do whatever the donor wants them to do that is power over the candidate. That power has shifted from the people and given to these organizations and corporations in order to increase their bottom line. “We the People” do not have the power we used to have.
Righteousness in scripture is an important issue. Scripture instructs us in Romans 13:8 not to owe anyone anything except love. Proverbs 22:7 tells us the rich rules over the poor, Matthew 6:24 Jesus warns us not to love money and we cannot serve both money and Christ. Ecclesiastes 5:5 warns that it is better not to make promises at all than to make them and not fulfill the obligation. These scriptures teach us not to be envious of material things however, strive to be holy, blameless, righteous and loving toward others. Romans 13:1 tells us to we are to be subjects to the government however, the U.S. government is to be subject to the people. In order to make this work there must be accountability. Government officials must be accountable to the people and the people must be accountable to the law. This is a delicate balance one which the people have not held up their end of the bargain by holding government officials accountable.
If the majority of Americans believe that money has too great of an impact on elections, then maybe we can band together and campaign against the contributions made to PACS, Super PACS and individual politicians. There needs to be a movement to bring awareness to this issue. Yes, there are many issues that voters need to be aware of but, if we first solve the problem of how our money effects elections then perhaps the other problems will be solved. When politicians stop making decisions based on money and more on what we the people really want then more problems will be solved. But then again, “We the People” must be on the same page by holding elected officials accountable.
One option to solve this problem lies in making businesses, individuals and other groups to be publicly accountable for their campaign donations. Justice Roberts said that it is clear that Congress cannot restrict the flow of money in and through politics due to the money being protected under the first amendment however, Congress can make the process transparent by forcing business, individual and group donations known to the public.
Efforts by groups such as “Government by the People Act” would have the government match campaign funds by a certain ratio and give donors a $25 tax credit.3 “Fair Elections Now Act” supports a similar idea however their proposal would place a cap on individual donations. There is also support, including Bernie Sanders, the idea of publicly funded elections in which campaign money is donated wither by tax revenue or income tax donations.4 If campaign donations can be funneled through the local, state and federal governments the monies could be dispersed evenly to every candidate from a collective “pot” that the governments manage while keeping the identities of the donors anonymous.
I personally like the idea of completely changing campaigning as we know it today through the use of technology. With social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Skype and Go-To-Meeting, candidates have an opportunity to speak to millions of people at once rather than a limited number of people. The government can set up websites for the candidates which the candidates themselves do not manage. Candidates can request certain information to be placed on the website however, the government must approve the information and complete a fact check as well. At least this would limit the need for campaign donations and keep interest groups, corporations and individuals out of the back pockets of the politicians.
1. http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/2016Report/pdf/CFI_Federal-CF_16_Table1-07.pdf
2. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/money-has-too-much-influence-politics-say-americans
3. Grunlan, Stephen A.; Remier, Milton; “Christian Perspectives on Sociology”; Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR.
4. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/fix-money-in-politics/473214/
