In 2014 social scientists from Princeton University published a study. Their conclusion? That the United States was an oligarchy, and that the opinion of the people of the United States has virtually no effect on the actions of the government. Years of unbridled campaign spending coupled with its natural result, campaign donations, have transformed the United States from a society in which the opinions of the populace were paramount into a society based on oligarchy, in which the only opinions that matter are those of the rich and powerful. This is the inevitable result of unrestricted campaign spending. Campaign spending breaks down the fundamental pillars that distinguish democratic governments from oligarchies.
As previously mentioned, social scientists found in 2014, that the United State’s citizens have virtually no effect on the actions of the government. The study stated “economic elites and organized interest groups play a substantial part in affecting public policy, but the general public has little or no independent influence.” This is the inevitable result of unlimited campaign spending. Campaign spending necessitates campaign fundraising. According to the Center for Responsive Politics,or CRP, an organization dedicated to tracking the influence of money in politics, in the 2010 congressional elections, almost 75% of money raised by campaigns was donated by large money donors or Political Action Committees, a form of interest group. These are people who have definite interests in politics, interests that could conflict with the interests of the people. Just look to the recent Senate vote to repeal the ability of consumers to sue banks. According to CRP, in the 2014 congressional elections banks, who aggressively supported repealing the consumer protections, donated more than 28 million dollars to candidates. In contrast 67% of Americans support the ability of consumers to sue banks, according to Ken Sweet of the Associated Press in 2017. Compare the amount of money that only banks donated to the approximately 30 million that British political parties are allowed to spend throughout an entire election. This pattern holds for issue after issue. Look at gun control, where 90% of Americans say they want background checks according to Politifact in 2015. But despite this overwhelming majority, gun control is shot down time after time, in large part due to the donations of the NRA, which spent more than a million dollars during the 2016 election, according to CRP. The New York Times also found that all of the NRA’s biggest recipients in the Senate voted against gun control. It is clear that politicians are listening to their donors, rather than the American public. This phenomenon is also confirmed by the social scientists who found that opinion of the American public had no effect on the government’s actions, while interest groups and the rich had substantial effects. But this is hardly just an American phenomenon. Compare Canada, where campaigns can spend only 21 million dollars, people can only donate $1,100, and 62% of people trust their government, to the United States and Australia, which both do not limit spending or donations effectively and where only 32% and 45% of people trust the government, respectively. It is clear that when politicians are forced to spend large amounts of money to compete, nearly 6 billion dollars total in 2016 in the US according to CRP, they must find large sources of funds, and they find these funds not in the public, but in the rich. Quite simply, when campaign spending is not limited, politicians will not listen to the people equally, they favor the rich.
Every time a candidate raises money, makes an ad, or spends money traversing their country or district, they spend less time writing and passing bills, they spend less doing their job, they spend less time serving the people they were elected to serve. The average Senate candidate in the United States has to raise $4700 per day to fund reelection, and this cost increased 62% from 1986 to 2012, while the price of a Congressional seat rose 272%, according to Tim Roemer of Newsweek in 2015. All of this fundraising makes governing a part time job. Since the Citizen’s United decision, which allowed the virtual free flow of money in the political system, congressmen are expected to spend at least 30 hours a week fundraising, according to David Jolly, a former Congressman. Jolly also states that this not only leaves less time for governing, but it makes the job less attractive. This means that less qualified people run for office, and that the country is therefore run by less qualified people. If campaign spending was limited to a level that more closely resembles other countries, campaign fundraising would play a less significant role in elections and governance, and governing and policy would return to being a full time job for members of the government.
The current system of unlimited spending heavily favors incumbents, who have the advantage of an established donor base, and candidates from large parties, who have huge amounts of money to spend on races. CRP found that for the 2016 American Senate elections incumbents outspent challengers with a whopping 12.7 million dollars to 1.6 million on average, and the combined spending of every single federal third party candidate that ran in 2006 was only 3.1 million dollars, according to Lindsay Mayer in CRP. Incumbents and major parties clearly have an advantage, but this advantage can be reduced with spending limits. Kevin Milligan of the University of British Columbia found in 2007 that when strict spending limits were placed on campaigns, the percentage of close races increased significantly, meaning that challengers were getting more votes. Milligan attributed this drop to under qualified incumbents winning their races. In other words, campaign spending limits allow for challengers to win against their lackluster incumbent opponents more often. Additionally, Milligan also found that campaign spending limits increased voter participation and turnout, as well as the variety and quantity of candidates. Milligan found that increasing the amount of money spent by $1000, decreased voter turnout by .266%. The increased competition offered by spending limits is important for two reasons: 1. Challengers provide sorely needed new talent to government, and 2. A core value of democracy in competition. Milligan concluded that the incumbents lost with spending limits because they were unqualified, this means that these incumbents are lacking in talent and are often replaced by people more qualified to hold government positions. In addition, democracy must have healthy competition to survive, without this there is no point in having elections at all. If the outcome of a race is based on who spends the most, which it is, according to the Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post in 2014: the better finance candidate wins 91% of the time, than that isn’t competition. It is clear that campaign spending limits would help challengers overcome incumbent advantage and therefore improve the political system.
The goal of a democratic society is to listen to the will of the people. Excessive campaign spending corrupts this system. Campaign spending necessitates fundraising, which is largely funded by interest groups and the rich. This leads to a system in which the voices of the people are superseded by the desires of the rich. Excessive campaign spending transforms an otherwise healthy democratic society into an oligarchy. Until the blight is removed from the political system of the United States, the country cannot claim to be anything close to a democracy.
Liberal Talking Head 