There are things afoot in this country that make me scratch my head (and sometimes swear). One of those things is what I perceive as a lack of regulation of U.S. federal campaign financing limits. As a result, big money is buying the presidency. If special interests (corporations, trade unions, lobbies, etc.) fund the majority of a federal politician’s campaign, who do you think (s)he answers to once they get into office? Not the regular voting taxpayer, brothers and sisters!
I’m Canadian. I can’t vote in the U.S. and this post is meant to be non-partisan (even though I’m going to talk about a Republican candidate in a minute). Initially, I wanted to write a full comparative piece on campaign financing laws in Canada and the U.S. but, like the U.S. electoral system as a whole, I’m having a hard time understanding it.
The guts of it, however, are that in Canada, special interests such as corporations and trade unions can’t fund federal political campaigns. Not a penny. And limits on individual donations were just raised to $1200 on the first of this year. You heard right.
The U.S. has tried to institute campaign finance reform, but a 2010 ruling by the Supreme Court overturned an earlier (2002) piece of legislation that regulated financing and said that it was in violation of corporations’ and unions’ First Amendment rights. Yup. It violated their free speech when they couldn’t spend millions on TV commercials to promote the candidate who they knew would push their special-interest agenda. And you better believe that they do spend millions.
Here’s another thing, though. Only one guy that is running in the current Republican Party nomination race even has the guts to talk about it. His name is Buddy Roemer. If you haven’t heard of him, it could be because nobody will let him participate in any of the televised debates. Oh, reaaaaally? (Participation is supposed to be based on polling numbers, but when Roemer and Perry tied with the same 1%, Perry was invited, Roemer was not).
Campaign finance laws lean way too far in favor of special interests in the U.S. The amount of money that flows in from business lobbies, trade unions, etc. is absurd. It doesn’t seem very democratic to me, and I am baffled that more people (regular voting taxpayers) aren’t talking about it. I tip my figurative hat to Buddy Roemer for trying to raise the issue.
That’s the stuff, girlfriend! Shine the spotlight on those gutter rats who are robbing America of its soul! These shenanigans boggle the mind and you have so rightly pointed them out. Finally, someone has the guts to come out and say it!! Take notes, American Press sheeple!!
Ha! Thanks, Jo! What’s interesting to me is that while there seems to be so much fear of regulation in the U.S., sometimes it’s a very good thing! There are other examples of that as well, e.g. Canadian banking regulation helped them to avoid the entire sub-prime mortgage debacle and subsequent recession.
Having lived in both countries for significant amounts of time and seeing some of the real advantages of a multiparty system with much less lobbying in a culture with much less fear, it is tough to see the US so close-minded. A Canadian friend who follows US politics with a vengeance asked me just the other day why we don’t make changes. My reply: Because the people here think that their way is the best way, bar none,a result of its historically parochial mentality.
Christina, I’ve also felt that there’s a resistance to making changes. I’d love to see an approach to government where there was more movement towards emulating systems and laws from other countries that have worked well. In the U.S., it feels like we’ve got things that are broke, and they’re just gonna stay broke. Thanks for your comment.
Once upon a time (when I was young and the earth was yet without form) we had a better system. I know it was better because it provided us with better choices. Truman vs Dewey was much better than Bush vs Gore. Eisenhower vs Stevenson was much better than Clinton vs Bush. Nixon vs Kennedy… need I go on. What happened?
Democracy happened. You see, once upon a time each party selected its best candidate and the people won regardless of who won, because the choices were both good. You could respect either candidate. Now we let the people choose the candidates “democratically.” I know people will argue that it’s “fairer” but, I’m sorry to say, the proof is in the pudding. Need I cite more examples of previous matchups vs the current ones?
America is not a democracy. It was never intended to be a democracy, and trying to make it into one has only served to diminish it. Think about it. Huge campaign spending only matters in a democracy.
Very interesting comments, Jack. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
It seems like the current method of selecting a leader in the U.S. is very cost- and labor-intensive. Again, to use Canada as a comparison, party leaders are selected by voting party members. They campaign a lot less before the party vote and it’s a relatively low-key affair compared to the system here. Do they choose the best possible candidate? I guess it depends on the year and the pool of candidates. There have been some ‘dud’ years up there, too.
Now, even if the candidate selection system here is meant to be democratic, it’s the ability of big money to influence the vote is what I’m most sore about. I do think that you can have a successful democracy and less campaign spending. If the system were different, candidates wouldn’t start campaigning 18 months before the election, for example.
Is democracy the end-all be-all anyway? That’s a whole other debate. There have been some fairly successful authoritarian systems out there (e.g. Suharto’s Indonesia). I prefer the freedoms that come with a democracy, but I also think that some of the Supreme Court decisions to protect those freedoms are questionable. That happens anywhere that there’s a constitutional democracy, though.
I hear you Laura, Glad you wrote about it. Corporations run the country and the world. We all must know about this! We vote when we shop, when we make decisions so much more than on our ballot.
Thanks, Jodi. It’s kind of crazy. It doesn’t even feel like the government is a government, just a puppet show in front of a bunch of corporations.
America…..the best that money can buy. And not just in politics. Lots of cronyism in capitalism.
My sister suggested I move to another country if I find a government better than that of the U.S. With family and history in this country the answer is to resolve the problem, not run from it.
Protesters involved in the Arab Spring have made significant change happen. The majority have lived their lives without much. Change was valued so highly it has cost the lives of some protesters to result in change. They had nothing to lose and much to gain.
Occupy Whatever seems to have subsided without any improvement for the 99%. Are we done? Are we not hurting enough to carry on the protest or are we just spineless enough to fold under law enforcement?
America is capitalism. Capitalism and democracy are not compatible.
I would like to see another FDR run for president. I wonder if FDR would be able to make this a better country with the Congress that exists now. Obviously, they never learned in kindergarten to play together…..to the detriment of the American individual and/or collective. It’s embarrassing.
The “most powerful” country in the world. Perhaps militarily, but what about socioeconomically? We are in debt way above our eyeballs. It’s the American way. We’re spoiled and undeservedly entitled, oh yea, and obese.
America, the best that money can buy. What do we do when we run out of money? Answer: Print more.
Voting just seems to bring the idiots into office. Time for an American Spring.
Bill, thanks for your comments. You are among the ranks of the frustrated. You might enjoy this blog post by a writer named Michael Hicks — “Let’s Reboot the National System” — http://authormichaelhicks.com/2012/01/18/national-operating-system/
I’d like to hear more about your comment “Capitalism and democracy are not compatible.” Please expound, if you care to!
I’m not sure what ‘Occupy Whatever’ might lead to, but it was somewhat encouraging to me that it happened at all. Maybe it was a prelude to an American Spring?
I enjoyed your insights into US politics. More and more it seems to me that “normal” non politicised folk are starting to look at fundamental issues that underpin our beliefs. The worship and power of money and the corrosive effect on democracy of those controlling the cash seems to have leapt into focus. I make no bones about my own politics having been radicalised as a young woman. For years ideas like socialism have been swept aside by an illusion of ever increasing wealth by way of economic growth. The rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer. Economic growth and depletion of resources cannot solve these differences. It is for the rich and the powerful to address these matters since the poor have no voice and no hands on the levers. They have only the streets and their lives to lose.
Hey, Emma, thanks for your input. At least you have social democratic parties in Europe; in the U.S., the mere mention of social anything sends people running for their guns! My view is that we should be utilizing bits of all the different -isms to make the best end result that we can. *Sigh*.
The rich and the powerful DO address it with their richness and power. That’s the problem…..the direction of their wealth and power. It isn’t towards the people. They keep it for themselves.
“Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!” Karl Marx
It could happen. It should happen.
It’s a heartbreaker here for us, Laura. First presidential campaign to be able to do this is coming soon. Richest person gets to be President. That’s how it feels.
It does feel like that, Cindy, because it’s like that! I thought I just saw a headline about one state that recently passed something new to limit campaign contributions, but I couldn’t find an article when I searched. I did find this, however, which illustrates just how complex, convoluted and cloudy campaign funding is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/12/fixing-campaign-finance-is-only-making-it-worse/