The Corrosive Influence of Money in American Politics

Dear Journal,

The sun rose this morning over the red, white, and blue flag hanging in my front yard, but the pride I once felt seems to be dulled by the betrayal that's become a bitter, daily pill for me to swallow. I sit here, a disabled U.S. Marine veteran, with a body battered by service and a mind whirring with thoughts of what could be, what should be.

I imagine a country, our country, where politicians wake up every morning not to the sound of lobbyists' calls or the cha-ching of corporate donations, but to the hum of their constituents' voices. A country where the smell of corruption isn't thicker than the scent of apple pie. A country where the halls of power echo with the needs of the people, not the wants of the highest bidder.

I picture senators and representatives rolling up their sleeves, not for photo ops, but to dig into the real issues—the ones that keep ordinary folks up at night. I see them fighting for better healthcare, not because pharma companies have greased their palms, but because they genuinely care about the single mom struggling to afford her kid's medication. I see them pushing for education reform, not to score points with teachers' unions, but because they believe every child deserves a fair shot at success.

I envision a nation where politicians spend their days working for the people who elected them—the farmer in Kansas battling drought, the steelworker in Pittsburgh worried about his pension, the teacher in Mississippi buying supplies out of her own pocket. I see them visiting communities not just for campaign stops, but to truly listen, to understand, to act.

But instead, we have a system where votes are bought like stocks and politicians are puppets dancing to the tune of their wealthy donors. It's a farce, a charade, and it's goddamn infuriating. I bled for this country, I watched brothers and sisters in arms fall, and for what? So some suit in D.C. could sell our democracy to the highest bidder?

The influence of money in American politics has been a subject of intense debate and scrutiny among scholars, policymakers, and the public alike. This report aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the role of money in politics, its historical evolution, legal frameworks, and its impact on democratic principles and policy outcomes. Drawing from various academic studies, legal analyses, and empirical data, this report argues that the current system of political financing undermines the core principles of American democracy and necessitates substantial reform.

Historical Evolution of Campaign Financing

The financing of political campaigns in the United States has evolved significantly over time. In the early days of the republic, campaigns were relatively low-cost affairs, often funded by the candidates themselves or through small contributions from individual supporters (Mutch, 1988). However, the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw a shift towards more expensive campaigns, with corporations and wealthy individuals becoming major contributors (Alexander, 1971).

The first significant attempt to regulate campaign financing came with the Tillman Act of 1907, which prohibited corporations from making direct financial contributions to federal candidates. However, the law was largely ineffective due to weak enforcement mechanisms and the emergence of alternative funding channels, such as political action committees (PACs) (Corrado, 2005).

The modern era of campaign finance regulation began with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, which established comprehensive rules for the disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. The act was amended in 1974 to impose limits on contributions to political campaigns and to create the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to oversee and enforce campaign finance laws (Persily, 2013).

Legal Frameworks and Judicial Decisions

The legal landscape of campaign financing has been significantly shaped by a series of judicial decisions, most notably by the Supreme Court. The court's interpretation of the First Amendment has been central to these decisions, with political spending often equated with free speech (Hasen, 2016).

One of the most influential cases is Buckley v. Valeo (1976), in which the Supreme Court upheld contribution limits but struck down expenditure limits, arguing that the latter infringed upon free speech rights. The court also established that independent expenditures—spending not coordinated with a candidate's campaign—could not be limited, as they did not pose a risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption (Persily, 2013).

The Citizens United v. FEC (2010) decision marked a significant turning point in campaign finance regulation. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions could make independent expenditures, asserting that such spending was protected under the First Amendment. The decision led to the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions, provided that their spending is not coordinated with candidates' campaigns (Hasen, 2016).

The Impact of Money on Democratic Principles

The influx of money into politics has raised serious concerns about the health of American democracy. Scholars have argued that the current system of political financing undermines the principle of political equality, as it grants disproportionate influence to wealthy donors (Dahl, 2006; Lessig, 2011). This inequality is evident in the skewed distribution of campaign contributions, with a small percentage of the population accounting for the majority of political donations (Bonica et al., 2013).

Moreover, the constant need for fundraising diverts politicians' time and attention away from their legislative duties and constituents' needs (Lessig, 2011). This dynamic creates a "dependence corruption," where elected officials become increasingly responsive to the interests of their donors rather than those of their constituents (Thompson, 1995).

The Impact of Money on Policy Outcomes

Empirical studies have demonstrated a strong correlation between campaign contributions and policy outcomes. Gilens and Page (2014) found that the preferences of economic elites and organized interest groups have a significant impact on policy, while the preferences of average citizens have virtually no influence. This disparity is particularly pronounced in areas such as tax policy, financial regulation, and environmental protection, where wealthy interests have clear stakes (Drutman, 2015).

Furthermore, the influence of money in politics can distort policy priorities, as issues that are salient to donors may receive disproportionate attention from policymakers (Hertel-Fernandez, 2019). This dynamic can lead to a misalignment between the policy agenda and the needs and preferences of the broader public.

Comparative Perspectives

Comparative analyses of campaign finance systems in other democracies highlight the exceptional nature of the U.S. system. Most democratic countries impose stricter limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, provide public funding for political campaigns, and have more robust enforcement mechanisms (Norris & Van Es, 2016). These comparisons suggest that alternative models of political financing are not only feasible but can also help mitigate the corrosive influence of money in politics.

Reform Proposals

Given the detrimental effects of the current campaign finance system, scholars and reform advocates have proposed various measures to curb the influence of money in politics. These proposals include:

1. Public Financing: Providing public funds for political campaigns can help reduce candidates' reliance on private donations and level the playing field for candidates with fewer financial resources (Malinowski, 2015).
2. Stricter Contribution Limits: Lowering contribution limits can help mitigate the influence of wealthy donors and promote a more egalitarian system of political financing (Hasen, 2016).
3. Enhanced Disclosure Requirements: Strengthening disclosure rules can increase transparency and accountability in political spending, enabling voters to make more informed decisions (Persily, 2013).
4. Overturning Citizens United: Some advocates argue for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, thereby allowing for greater regulation of independent expenditures (Moncrief, 2015).
5. Small Donor Matching Systems: Implementing systems that match small donations with public funds can amplify the voices of ordinary citizens and encourage broader political participation (Malinowski, 2015).

Conclusion

The influence of money in American politics poses a significant threat to the principles of democratic equality and responsive governance. The historical evolution of campaign financing, the legal frameworks that govern it, and the empirical evidence of its impact on policy outcomes all point to the urgent need for reform. By learning from comparative experiences and implementing comprehensive reform measures, the United States can work towards a political system that is more accountable, egalitarian, and truly representative of the interests of all its citizens.

As a disabled U.S. Marine veteran, I have witnessed firsthand the consequences of a political system that is more responsive to the interests of wealthy donors than to the needs of ordinary citizens. It is my hope that this scholar report contributes to the growing body of evidence highlighting the corrosive influence of money in politics and galvanizes efforts to bring about meaningful reform.

We deserve better. We deserve a government that works for us, that fights for us, that remembers us. We deserve a country where the strength of our voices matters more than the depth of our pockets. We deserve a nation that is truly of the people, by the people, for the people.

But until that day comes, I'll keep writing, keep fighting, keep hoping that one day, our elected officials will remember who they're supposed to serve. Because this country doesn't belong to the corporations or the lobbyists or the billionaires. It belongs to us—the people. And it's high time our politicians started acting like it.

Semper Fi,

Angry American Marine Disabled Veteran

References

Alexander, H. E. (1971). Financing Politics: Money, Elections, and Political Reform. Council on Foreign Relations.

Bonica, A., McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2013). Why Hasn't Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(3), 103-124.

Corrado, A. (2005). Money and Politics: A History of Federal Campaign Finance Reform. Brookings Institution Press.

Dahl, R. A. (2006). On Political Equality. Yale University Press.

Drutman, L. (2015). The Business of America Is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became More Corporate. Oxford University Press.

Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564-581.

Hasen, R. L. (2016). Plaque: A User's Guide to Democracy in a Post-Truth World. Yale University Press.

Hertel-Fernandez, A. (2019). State Capture: How Conservative Activists, Big Businesses, and Wealthy Donors Reshaped the American States—and the Nation. Oxford University Press.

Lessig, L. (2011). Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It. Twelve.

Malinowski, S. (2015). Public Funding of Elections in the United States. McFarland.

Moncrief, G. (2015). Why Democracies Need a Written Constitution. Oxford University Press.

Mutch, R. E. (1988). Campaigns, Congress, and Courts: The Making of Federal Campaign Finance Law. Praeger.

Norris, P., & Van Es, R. (2016). Checkbook Elections? Political Finance in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press.

Persily, N. (2013). Solutions to Political Polarization in America. Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, D. F. (1995). Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption. Brookings Institution Press.