We hear it all the time. It is probably one of the most
discussed issues in American politics; money and its influence.
Why does money have such power in our electoral and
governing processes? (In
a June, 2015 New York Times / CBS News Poll 84% believe money has too much
influence) The answer is actually quite simple. The reason is staring at us
from the mirror. We, the voters, allow it.
Power can be the result of position. Elected officials at
all levels have power because of their office. A CEO or other person, who by title
has supervisory responsibility over us at work, has power by nature of their
position. But beyond this legitimate power, any power is granted, allowed to
exist, only by those subject to that power. In other words, money has power
because we acquiesce to it.
I admit that in the game of politics, getting the “message”
out is how elections are won. This requires advertising which in turn costs
money. But is money the issue or is it voters’ acceptance of the soundbites and
talking points that are being used? Is the problem really our willingness to
accept those, not demanding more substantial information and specific solutions
from politicians? Does the root cause of the problem lie within us and not the
system?
As the 2016 election cycle kicks into high gear, media
attention appears focused on fundraising totals. What is reported determines
who gets the attention. Media, whether a recognized news source, legitimate
reporting, commentary, or blog posting, is determining who is considered a viable
candidate. Higher fundraising totals begat more donations. Those at the lower
end quickly loose column space and air time. Is money driving this or is it our
willingness to accept the decision of others without question and much other
information?
What would happen if voters, in addition to exercising their
power of the ballot box, first demanded candidates provide and the media report
how they will specifically solve the problems being faced by their
constituents? What if voters exercised power of the purse and stopped “buying”
soundbites, talking points, and irrelevant attacks?
In 2010, the Supreme Court granted corporations the same
free speech rights as individuals when ruling in favor of Citizens United in Citizens
United v FEC. Voters were told that those who could donate millions of
dollars would now have the ultimate power in determining who runs all levels of
government. Voters accepted this logic, reinforcing the concept that money has
power, not realizing the only power money or those who control it have is that
which is bestowed by the very voters who decry the influence. And here lies the
root cause.
Look in the mirror. What is causing the person looking at
you from deciding money will no longer have power over their political
decisions? What is preventing the person looking at you from demanding the
money being spent provides real information, information that can be used to
make an informed decision on who to vote for? What is preventing the person
looking at you from bestowing power to those who will make decisions based on
the best interests of their constituents and not who will give them the most
money?
Is money in politics the problem or is it us? Perhaps
instead of looking at ways to reduce the amount of money allowed to be donated
and spent, we need to look at ways to increase voter demand for more specific
information. Voters need to get turned-off by talking points and learn how to
express displeasure to those candidates who refuse to leave them behind. Do
voters just not care or are they forced to accept what is being provided? If it
is the later, then effort needs to be focused on how to change the mindset from
having to accept what is provided to driving what is provided. Just as consumers
drive the market, voters have the actual power to shape campaign and electoral
processes. Money and those who control it have no power if voters do not grant
it.
