“It is money, money, money! Not ideas, not principles, but money that reigns supreme in American Politics.” – Robert Byrd
“The United States Congress is incapable of passing laws without permission from corporate lobbies and other special interests.” – Al Gore
These quotes from opposite ends of the political spectrum illustrate the influence of money in American politics.
We are a nation divided. While this didn’t begin with the election of President Trump, the division has metastasized from a gap into a canyon. When this is over, we need to find ways to come back together. Solving big problems on which most of us agree could be a place to start.
Members of both parties and all persuasions agree that “we have the best (or worst) government money can buy.” A 2016 survey (Ipsos) found that 72 percent of those polled – representing most every demographic – wanted the parties to work together to reduce the influence of money in politics. A NY Times/CBS Poll in 2015 reported 84 percent said the influence of money was creating major problems in governance.
It’s a problem when, regardless of party, money determines how your representative votes on any given issue. It’s a problem when, regardless of party, individual members spend half their time raising money for the next election. It’s a problem when, regardless of party, laws passed by Congress help contributors and big money interests, often to the detriment of their own constituents.
When it comes to money, both parties are equally vulnerable and individuals in both parties have proven to be equally corruptible. As corruption becomes more the norm and as voters are ignored in favor of big money interests, they lose faith in the system, convinced that politicians are just out to serve themselves.
Disenchanted citizens don’t vote. And more and more are becoming disenchanted. During the last Presidential election, more people stayed home than voted for either candidate, according to SurveyMonkey and FiveThirtyEight.com.
Participation is vital to a democratic republic; otherwise we become an oligarchy – a government by and for the rich. Some say we’re already there.
It’s time to consider actions to reduce the influence of money in politics. Here are some ideas:
Term limits for Congress: This might be a good place to start. Twelve years is enough; that’s six terms in the House and two in the Senate with no moving back and forth between the two. With overlap, members in both Houses can provide/receive mentoring and guidance. While we’re at it, instead of longevity being the basis for naming committee chairs and ranking members, allow members of each committee to vote their choice. Perhaps talent and ideas can replace entrenched experience, which often leads to more of the same old, same old. Can we agree?
Lifetime ban on lobbying: This would help members focus on their current job, not the obvious one down the road. Now, 50 percent of senators and 42 percent of congressmen move into lobbying jobs after leaving Congress. Ever wonder what they did to receive those offers? People we elect need to represent us, not big money corporations and industries. Can we agree?
Easy access to list of contributors and amounts donated: This would strengthen transparency so voters don’t have to dig up information themselves. Make it a requirement that every six months, every member of Congress disclose every donation over $1,000. Providing this information using a combination of social media or email to all their constituents should be a requirement. Thanks to Citizens United, the bank is open for corporations, but candidates could choose to refuse all money from PACs and corporations. That’s one positive way of getting voters’ attention and could generate a race to the top. Can we agree?
Shorten the election calendar: Do this and you reduce the amount of money needed to campaign. In 2012, it cost about $20 million to run for a Senate race and around $3 million to run for the House. The vast majority is spent on advertising. Some spent a lot more, some a lot less, depending on the size of the district, etc. But regardless, it’s too much. Two months of campaigning is plenty of time to annoy the public with Robocalls, television ads, etc. Primaries, if held on the same day nationwide, could be limited to one month of campaigning. Once a beginning date is set, anyone who jumps the gun would be hit with a hefty fine – which would go directly to their opponent. Can we agree?
Expand public financing: By requiring an automatic contribution of $3 from every income tax filing, the taxpayer could deduct that amount for the current year. It’s a painless way of increasing public funding and decreasing the need to rely on outside interests that could – and regularly do – demand a quid for their pro quo. Can we agree?
Establish a blue-ribbon commission of statesmen/women to review our election process with the aim of reducing the influence of money in politics and increasing voter participation. This would include recommendations to Congress to legislate any changes to the current system. Can we agree?
Money in politics has become an evil accessory that has overtaken everything else in the political process. It’s harming the system and alienating voters. The goal should be to make government responsive to the people. Hopefully we can agree this is a goal worth striving for by both political parties.
Villager Marsha Shearer is a frequent contributor to Villages-News.com
