The article "Reversing trend, Democrats top the list of biggest super PAC donors," by Peter Olsen-Phillips, Nancy Watzman and Jacob Fenton explores the allegedly inverting campaign finance trend in the United States. The article outlines that last year's most substantial donors lean democratic. The top two donors alone, former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, California billionaire and environmentalist, contributed 20 million dollars to Democratic campaigns. The article goes on to list all of the top donors, how much and where those donors chose to contribute. Additionally, as the article reveals, the vast majority of those donations were to Democratic Party PACs. And, as the article's title suggests, this current phenomenon is a trend reversal, a challenge to the general stigma. The Republican Party has the reputation of being an institution of mass acceptors of massive funds, as it is the Democrats who often champion the cause of campaign finance reform. However, clearly the Republican Party is not the only party in this country accepting substantial donations to their committees, campaigns, candidates, etc. So this fact—this reversed trend—brings up a fairly compelling question: if everyone does it, does that make it okay?
I think of it very much like the use of steroids in sports. If one person does it, everyone else must do it to remain competitive. And, much like with the use of steroids, when you implement something unnatural to play the game, you're going to have to deal with the equally unnatural side effects. In many cases, those who accept money from large businesses, the influential and the wealthy, are expected to uphold the interests of those who donate, regardless of their personal views and of what might be best. With regard to the accuracy and integrity of the American political system, this is a pretty notable side effect. The United States is a representative democracy. Meaning, the people are given the opportunity, the right, to elect politicians who will represent them, their needs, their goals. Living up to that standard is made difficult—if not impossible—by campaign finance. Those elected come to represent not the general "them" but the "them" with the most money to give. Campaign finance corrupts the representative nature of our democracy: it connects having a say with having an open wallet. This can be highly detrimental to the integrity of the American political system; it potentially leaves an entire portion of the populous feeling unable to make a difference. Whether or not this sentiment is real or imagined, it can definitely take a toll on how the American people view the government. The fact that politicians are accepting large donations (and are then presumably held to the desires of those donors) leaves the general American public (who do not or cannot donate) with a feeling of irrelevance. Sentiments like these can lead to distrust or dislike of the American government, which in turn can cause lower voting rates and thus an even less accurately representative government.
Fundamentally, campaigns are just the beginning of one’s political career in a certain field. So it is not surprising that the nature of the campaign will reflect the nature of the term—of that candidate’s trustfulness, integrity, success in office. We get out what we put in, in more ways than one. For wealthy donors, they almost literally get out what they put in—the money they donate positively correlates with the advancement of policy they support. The rest of the American public, get what they put in too—which is next to nothing. Last, the American government puts in a group of politicians who are guided not by their personal values and goals but by those who put money in their political pockets, and in turn, receives an inaccurately representative, monetarily minded leadership, and a distrustful, uninvolved populous.
Olsen-Phillips, Peter, Nancy Watzman, and Jacob Fenton. "Reversing Trend, Democrats Top the List of Biggest Super PAC Donors." Sunlight Foundation Blog. February 4, 2014. Accessed September 11, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment