When you go to the polls to vote, how many of you cast your vote based on how much candidates spent on their campaigns? Perhaps you should. Have you ever wondered where the money comes from? In order to meet the high cost of elections, candidates rely on campaign contributions. This results in the golden rule of politics – the person with the gold makes the rules. Consequently, the high cost of campaigns and the lack of restrictions on contributions degrade the integrity of our democracy. As a result, your democracy is often sold to the highest bidder
At the heart of the problem is the extreme high cost of political campaigns. The Center for Responsive Politics, at open secrets.org, accessed May 20, stated that the total cost for the 2012 federal election exceeded $6 billion.
In order to meet these costs, candidates rely on contributions from special interests and wealthy individuals. According to the afore mentioned open secrets.org, in the 2012 presidential campaign, almost $856,000,000 was contributed by wealthy individuals. This amount was 74% of the total of all individual contributions.
One of the primary ways these groups make contributions is through lobbying. According to the lobbying database at open secrets.org, accessed May 19, total lobbying spending in 2013 was $3.23 billion, and in the first quarter of 2014 was $810 million.
Adding fuel to the fire, regulations governing contributions have become less restrictive.
In his April 2, 2014 article in the Washington Post, Robert Barnes wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2014 case that campaign contributions are essentially free speech and the Congress may not regulate contributions because that violates the first amendment. This ruling essentially removed all restrictions on contributions. The effect all this has on us is astounding. Our votes now mean less and less.
Often large contributors determine who wins an election. In their 2012 paper in Economic Theory, Rebecca Morton and Roger Myerson state that since candidates must compete for contributions, the expectations of political favors and influence by the contributors is a decisive factor in elections. It gets worse. Large contributors have disproportionate influence over actual governance. Paul Jorgensen, using the pharmaceutical industry as an example, explains in his 2013 paper in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics how contributions from this industry not only influenced elections, but also gave the industry critical influence in formulating and implementing policy. Another way officeholders are influenced is when interest groups offer high paid positions as lobbyists to elected officials. It is exceptionally difficult to assign a dollar value to this system, but there can be little doubt that this practice is as wide spread as it is insidious.
Granted, all this is a great deal of statistics, numbers and dollar amounts. However, if this information is distilled down to its essence, it means many candidates are elected because of the amount of contributions they received, and many laws are enacted because influence was purchased by interest groups.
There are straightforward steps that can be taken to solve this problem. By better controlling the behavior of office holders and how we conduct elections, we can begin to reclaim our democracy.
Jack Abramoff
If anyone has insight into the problems with contributions, it would be Jack Abramoff. Abramoff is a former lobbyist, probably the most crooked and notorious of our time. In January 2006, he was convicted of mail fraud, conspiracy to bribe public officials, and tax evasion. Since his release from prison, he has worked as a consultant offering solutions for reforming campaign financing. In a 2013 interview with State Legislators, Abramoff proposed that legislators should be prevented from soliciting or accepting donations from any industry they regulate. In that same interview, Abramoff stated that when a member leaves Congress there should be up to a 10-year waiting period before they can enter the lobbying industry.
Lastly, I believe our national campaigns should be limited 90 days. The 2016 election campaigns have already begun, and over the next two years billions of dollars will be raised and spent. Both the United Kingdom and Canada are contemporary examples of the success of shorter campaigns. According to Campaign Finance: United Kingdom, at the Library of Congress website, and The Length of Federal Election Campaigns, at the Parliament of Canada website, both accessed May 27, British and Canadian campaigns are very short. I absolutely believe that everyone in this classroom can decide how to vote in 90 days or less.
I believe that these steps would be more effective that others that propose forcing limits on contributions.
Provisions that would limit what can be accepted by legislators and that would establish an extended waiting period before a member could accept employment as a lobbyist can be authorized internally by the Congress, and as such, they would not be subject to adjudication by the courts.
Congress has the authority to regulate elections. I believe that establishing a maximum length for national elections is legal and would withstand judicial review.
Campaign contributions and lobbying by special interests not only influence the outcome of elections but also how they affect the laws our government enacts. I have outlined some straightforward steps that could diminish this problem. Regardless whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian, a conservative or a liberal, I believe that your vote should count more than a contribution. I truly hope that you will have a fierce, unrelenting determination that your democracy cannot be bought.
THINK ABOUT THIS 