Power, Politics, Money And Free Speech
By Fazal M. Kamal
24 April, 2014
Countercurrents.org
Apparently, as research suggests, the more the people have lost confidence and trust in politicians, simultaneously, the more the influence of money over political decisions kept increasing. Obviously, this isn’t surprising in the least since this is simply a cause-and-effect event. But this fact also---and clearly---raises myriad questions about what democracy, and democratic principles and practices are supposed to mean for a country’s electorate and the opinions of its people.
In the United States the path for this has been, inscrutably, eased by the decisions of the justices of the Supreme Court. As Northwestern University’s Benjamin Page noted, “I find this very troubling. The [supreme] court’s view that political donations constitute ‘speech’ protected by the First Amendment [of the US Constitution] opens the door to money-driven politics and a distortion of democracy.”
In point of fact, in a study that is due to be published in September Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Page found policy changes were influenced far more by economic elites and business interest groups than the average voter. “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence,” the pair observed.
In countries like Bangladesh where, according to a Transparency International Bangladesh report, the issue of funding campaigns and politicians “is neither among the priority agenda of the parties themselves or of the government, nor is it amongst issues that have drawn any significant public interest until recently. One of the key reasons why political finance remains almost a taboo in Bangladesh is that politics has become a ‘winner-takes-all’ game and indeed a profit-making investment, where parties and candidates taking part in elections invest huge funds to gain power, and therefore, transparency and disclosures are the last thing on the agenda of the political parties.”
Some will certainly argue, and with fair reasoning, that money has always played a significant role in political campaigns and decisions in all countries regardless of the development status of their economies. While to a substantial degree this rationale would be true, it’s nevertheless reckless to encourage the further erosion of the majority’s power to influence national agendas and, in effect, make it easier for corporatists and similar people to have greater power while corroding the electorate’s options. Already, for decades the portfolios of lobbyists---who are blessed with legal standing and legitimacy---in the US capital have been burgeoning rapidly. No wonder.
Still, according to an article published on the Santa Clara University website, “critics of the current system of campaign financing argue that the high cost of office-seeking and current ways of meeting those costs not only distract elected officials from their primary task of lawmaking, but leave the door open to the influence of special interests. When a politician is influenced by either the need to solicit contributions from special interests to finance a costly election campaign, or by a sense of obligation to benefactors, the politician may no longer represent the interests of his or her entire constituency.”
The report goes on to add, “The ability to influence electoral outcomes with infusions of cash poses a significant challenge to the idea of equality expressed in the principle of ‘one man, one vote’ upon which democratic government is based. If the outcome of elections can be determined by the amount of money spent on the political campaign, then special interest donors have greater power to influence elections than the average voter. Such a situation unjustly violates the principle of equality that is fundamental to democratic government.”
Nevertheless, as a Yahoo report points out, there’s a different take on the issue as well. The Yahoo critique says, “Recent political history may also offer a bit of a counterpoint to the Gilens-Page study [referred to above]. One consistent preference of 1 percenters is smaller government and less regulation. Yet President Obama, who clearly favors something other than limited government, is now in his second term. And government regulation is swelling, not receding.
“The Affordable Care Act, which passed in 2010 and just went into effect last year, hardly serves the interests of the affluent. The 1 percent may have succeeded in preventing a full government-run healthcare system from forming, but the subsidized care available under the ACA to people living near the poverty line seems like it’s here to stay.”
However, it also underscores this fact: “Still, there is no denying that moneyed interests strongly influence (and sometimes even write) laws and regulations, while thwarting a lot of government action that might harm their cause. The standoff between the rich and the rest might even intensify as fresh tradeoffs need to be made involving taxes, government spending and other increasingly urgent priorities. The outlook for democracy has certainly been brighter.”
Of course, as in all matters, on this issue there are many who support the US Supreme Court’s decisions that are providing an almost unfettered ability to some to have the power to maneuver laws, regulations, rules and political hopefuls as they wish. And as has been already noted, it’s definitely doubtful if bestowing such authority on money is the way to go while attempting to ensure that politicians and politics are mindful of the interests of the majority who, evidently, lack similar weighting.
Additionally, a sobering observation: In a critique Bill Moyers and Michael Winship underlines that “economic analyst Robert Reich reminded us that in addition to getting the largest percent of total national income in nearly a century [in the US], many in the one percent are paying a lower federal tax rate than a lot of people in the middle class. You may remember that an obliging Congress, of both parties, allows high rollers of finance the privilege of ‘carried interest,’ a tax rate below that of their secretaries and clerks.” Makes perfect sense.
Ultimately since, like all other human endeavors, democracy too is an evolving concept, maybe, in future the trend will begin swinging in the opposite direction, as is often the case due to laws of nature. Meanwhile, let us consider the pros and cons as presented by two quotations: Historian Theodore H. White commented that “The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy.” However, on a completely different tangent astute social commentator/humorist Will Rogers is reported to have declared, "America has the best politicians money can buy."
Perhaps, after all, it ain’t a southward slide all the way.
The writer has been a media professional, in print and online newspapers as editor and commentator, and in public affairs, for over forty years.
Comments are moderated