In America today, many believe that the current state of the United States government is dominated by economic elites. This has resulted from two different aspects of our recent political culture; corporations providing funds to bureaucrats in exchange for political influence and those politicians who received corporate funds now become economic elites. Jane Mayer’s book Dark Money begins with a very profound quote from Louis Brandeis that states, “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both” (Mayer). The influx of corporate funding into politics has given the elites a seat at the table and major political influence.
Over the last three election cycles politically active nonprofits have become a major force in federal elections. The ability of these economic elites to gain influence on American politics allow these citizens to control the outcomes of issues where their beliefs typically lean more towards the conservative agenda, such as “important policies concerning taxation, economic regulation, and especially social welfare programs” (Page). There strength is not in their populous (in fact in 2012 132 Americans provide 60% of all SuperPAC contributions) but rather in their ability to write-off blank checks (Lessig). Any attempt on campaign finance reform have only resulted in stalemate. The issue surround campaign finance reform is that Supreme Court rulings has deemed the matter an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, protection on freedom of speech. As seen in two Supreme Court decisions on reforming campaign financing, Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, “restrictions on the use of money in election campaigns is a restriction on the freedom of speech, and thus a violation of the First Amendment” (Maisel). These two Supreme Court decisions ultimately allowed for unlimited campaign donations for individuals and loosened the restrictions on corporate expenditures.
Having looked into the campaign spending from candidate in our latest election the reality of the influence money can pay become quite clear. According to OpenSecrets, at one point during the 2016 election the total amount of outsider contributions had increased by 34% compared to the 2014 midterm election and five time greater then the previous Presidential election cycle (OpenSecrets). In almost all of the 2016 Congressional races the candidate that raised the most contributions ultimately won the seat. In fact, out of the 34 seats in the United States Senate that were up for regular election this year only two of the races were won by a candidate that did not raise the most funding (OpenSecrets). One cannot deny the correlation between the amount of campaign contributions a candidate receives and the likelihood of them winning their race. Which is why corporations put so much money behind their candidates because they know it will provide them with political influence. Once the corporations gain their influence those in charge can now sway policy to their benefit. Many of the corporations that provide funding for candidates include top investment banking firms, companies from the tobacco industry, corporations from the energy sector, and political action committees (known as PACs). As corporate money falls into the hands of our politicians they eventually become just another economic elite, likely to take political action based on their self-interest at the expense of common good.
What’s stands out when examining how big money influence the recent election is that many of the big campaign funders backed the democratic nominee, Hilary Clinton. The Clinton campaign received an astounding $189 million in outsider donations (OpenSecrets). While on the other side, Donald Trump did receive a much small amount of outsider funding for his campaign the number is still large at just under $60 million (OpenSecrets). It’s typical that one could possibly forecast or at least have sense for what may transpire in a given election race by looking at the amount of finical backing and whose provide the funds for the candidate. But this latest Presidential election has been very atypical and it only seems natural that the winning candidate this years was not the candidate with the most big money support.
United States political system has been moving closer and closer to this plutocratic model, where the multi-millionaires dominate Washington while working class Americans sit on the sidelines. This lack of working class representatives in Congress is highlighted by Nicholas Carnes. In Carnes article, Which Millionaire Are You Voting For?, he states that “if millionaires were a political party, that party would make up roughly 3 percent of American families, but it would have a super-majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, a majority on the Supreme Court and a man in the White House” (Carnes). While on the other hand, “if working-class Americans were a political party, that party would have made up more than half the country since the start of the 20th century. But legislators from that party (those who last worked in blue-collar jobs before entering politics) would never have held more than 2 percent of the seats in Congress” (Carnes). Working class citizens are the backbone of our society and have played a major role in the development of this nation, but recently these citizens have been left out and over looked by many of our politicians.
It is clear that in the United States today, the wealthy exert more political influence that citizens who are less well of financially are capable of. This reality is extremely worrisome for the success of the American government and democratic policy-making as a whole because as the economic elites use their resources to effect certain areas of public policy. The political agenda of those in the top socio-economic class will certainly differ from the preferences of the general public. This preferential treatment of one group over another in politics creates a political system that is ineffective for a majority of the citizens it governs. But as political fundraising has become more linked with big money financiers, their importance will becoming more and more significant as raising cost of everyday campaign operations only continue to grow.
Work Cited
Carnes, Nicholas. "Which Millionaire Are You Voting For?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Oct. 2012. Web.
Lessig, Lawrence. Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress -- and a Plan to Stop It. New York: Hachette Book Group, 2011.
Mayer, Jane. Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. New York: Doubleday, 2016.
Maisel, L. Sandy, and Mark D. Brewer. Parties and Elections in America: The Electoral Process. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012.
Page, Benjamin I., Larry M. Bartels, and Jason Seawright. "Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans." Perspectives on Politics 11.01 (2013): 51-73. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.
Lessig, Lawrence. “We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim”. Ted2013. February, 2013.
“Top Election Spenders”. OpenSecrets: Center for Responsive Politics. Web. 6 Dec. 2016
“Congressional Races”. OpenSecrets: Center for Responsive Politics. Web. 6 Dec. 2016