The American people have always been apathetic towards government. But this sentiment has never been quite as strong as it is today. Nearly every problem that one has with our government can be traced to a single fact: Congress has become a broken branch — and the cause of Congress’ inefficiency can largely be traced to the money.
The Watergate saga created the political axiom “follow the money,” and it is a great way to explain our problems. Now, lobbyists have always influenced Congress, but there have never been as many lobbies, as much spent and as large an effect ever before. The health care debate is a great example of the effect money has on our political system. A recent CBS/New York Times poll has shown that 65 percent of people would approve of a public option included in health care reform. Several important members of Congress, however, have sought to eliminate it from the bill. Why? Well, the insurance companies are against a public option because it would be worthy competition. Take Max Baucus for example, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who, according to Montana Standard, received $3.4 million from health insurance companies over the last five years. Is it not unreasonable to suggest that the money was spent to soften a potential Democratic health care bill? Obviously these companies expected something for their money, or else why would they depart with their life’s blood for no reason?
Contributions to elected officials, particularly members of Congress, are a practice that occurs across party lines and among many interest groups. In many cases, this has stagnated our government on crucial issues at critical times. What other than the contributions of Wall Street could have led to the bipartisan deregulation that has caused our Great Recession? Oil companies, as another example, have given millions to Congress over the years. Over the same period of time, Congress has passed no climate change bills, no bills to cap gas prices and it took thirty years to raise the fuel efficiency standards. Can anyone really make the case that the two are in no way related?
Under current law, donations to political candidates are under the doctrine that these contributions are forms of free speech. Contributions cannot be considered political speech, since one can obviously contribute more money than someone else. In a democracy each person contributes equally to the political process with his or her vote. The votes and concerns of a constituency — and of the nation as a whole — are the only factors elected officials should consider when making laws; money intended to influence has disrupted that equilibrium. They are also new indications that the problem may only get worse.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case involving an anti-Hillary Clinton movie. The Court is widely expected to use the case to rule that corporations may make direct political contributions. This would drastically change the way campaigns are financed in America. Members of Congress are already in constant need of campaign cash. And if corporations can give it to them directly, who knows how much the legislative process will change?
To change this system we must change the way we finance elections. The way to do so is to create a publicly-financed election system, in which each American would pay for the campaigns. While many may shrink from such an idea, remember that with public financing elections will be shorter and there will be fewer ads. Instead of a two-year battle of gaffes and sound bytes, our elections could be two-week campaigns with issues and positions. For far too long, the interests with the most money have won on Capitol Hill. Money should be eliminated from America’s political system so that democracy and the actual interests of the people will reign.
Nick Field is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs and a liberal columnist for The Eagle. You can reach him at edpage@theeagleonline.com.