Last week New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez was indicted on corruption charges. Menendez has been accused of bribery and conspiracy, along with other charges. The indictment is centered around Menendez’s relationship with Dr. Salomon Melgen, a long time donor to Menendez, who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting the senator. The prosecution claims Menendez gave Melgen special treatment because of his donations, making it akin to a bribe. With money becoming more prevalent in American politics, the line between bribe and donation has blurred. People who donate significant amounts to politicians might get preferential treatment, but it is hard to prove their donations amount to bribes. Donations can also be a much more innocuous show of support for a candidate. However, it is almost inevitable that involving such a large amount of money in politics will create corruption.
Corruption here does not necessarily mean bribes and shady back-room deals. Some of that does happen, but at least one study has found that money does not affect the level of corruption in American politics. The real effect money has is much more subtle. Money takes away the power the American people have over politics and makes politicians fundraisers first. While this is not illegal, it undermines the democratic process and disconnects people from politics.
Good politicians have to be good fundraisers; this is a fact in contemporary politics. In the 2014 midterm elections, the average congressman raised $721,082, and the average senator raised $2,657,953. Parties will rarely even endorse a candidate who does not show he can fundraise well. In the 2004 elections, 95 percent of House races and 91 percent of Senate races were won by the candidate who spent the most on his campaign. This leads many politicians to chase large donors instead of voters, since they can translate money into votes at a more rapid rate than if they just campaigned.
It is clear the current system makes politicians worry about money a great deal. Even the most well-meaning politicians have to worry about how their actions will look to their donors; one harmful decision and a politician could be out of office because he lost his donors. Freshmen politicians are forced to spend more time fundraising then legislating — it’s not hard to imagine what this does to their mindsets. If political donations were capped at a reasonably low number or fundraising disallowed while Congress was in session, politicians could make more time to review policies and figure out what would be best for their constituents, not donors.
The major problem when it comes to limiting money in politics is that it is considered speech since the Citizens United ruling. This ruling makes it very hard to pass any laws limiting political spending since free speech is a dearly held right for Americans. Arguments for free speech do have merit. In principle, no one should be able to tell an American citizen how to spend his money. Yet, when this spending encroaches on other freedoms, the government has a right to step in and protect the rights of the people at the expense of a few individuals. There is precedent for the government limiting what people can spend their money on in the interests of the whole; drugs are the most prominent example of this. Politics seems different because the harmful effects on society are not as apparent. Yet, I think it clear that money’s current influence in politics is just as corrosive to society.
Despite the desperate need for this change, it is not something that will be achieved easily. Many politicians resist change for fear of losing office. Most people with enough money to make their voice heard in politics benefit from the current situation. Even if a law were passed, the current Supreme Court is clearly not in favor of campaign finance reform. Realistically this only leaves a popular movement to pressure the government for change. The beginnings of this can already be seen. In the most recent elections a majority of likely voters, from both sides of the isle, believe that Super PAC spending was wrong. Even the Supreme Court has been know to change its mind under the pressure of a popular movement.
Removing some of money’s influence would place the power of setting the debated issues more squarely in the hands of the people. People are becoming more disillusioned with politics and are participating less because they feel like their vote doesn’t matter. For all these reasons and the ones I mentioned above money’s influence should be strongly curtailed in politics through limiting campaign financing. The protection of our individual rights is not worth degrading the democratic process. Money needs to go.
Bobby Doyle is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at b.doyle@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | YesterdayStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 2 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | 2 days agoLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
