At the heart of democracy lies the fundamental notion that every citizen has an equal voice in society. This value, which began centuries ago, continues today as the cornerstone of the United States government. But is the democracy that we cherish truly a reality?
Based upon recent research and quantitative analysis, the answer is a clear and resounding no. The primary cause of this democratic deterioration lies in the U.S. campaign process, a tradition that links money and politics and allows incumbents to be reelected in more than 90 percent of congressional races. Private corporations, lobbying organizations and wealthy individuals donate millions to candidates, and studies verify that candidates have been successfully returning the favor.
Through highly organized lobbying “machines,” the most affluent donors restrict their massive contributions to candidates who share their interests and cut off funding to opponents. These corrupt practices undermine the most basic principles of democracy. In the last 40 years, the flow of money from private interests into the hands of public officials has skyrocketed to unacceptable levels.
The biggest growth in private donations has come from corporate lobbying, a trend that greatly expanded in the late 1970s. From 1976 to 1986, the number of labor political action committees (PACs), typically representing low-income workers, increased from 224 to 261. In contrast, the number of corporate and trade PACs grew from 922 to 2,182, reflecting a sudden and widespread mobilization of big business in politics.
During this same 10-year period, average real expenditures by incumbents in the House nearly tripled, a direct response to the increased corporate presence in Washington.
Candidates from both parties have since been forced to curry favor with big business to survive the election process. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, is a notable example. From 1990 to 1998, he raised $2.5 million from securities and investment firms, more than triple the amount of any other senator.
The influence of corporate lobbying is not limited to electoral misrepresentation. It also manifests itself in the laws being passed and the drastic effects of those laws.
Perhaps the most disturbing result of this corporate presence has been the sharp growth of income inequality in the United States. Before 1979, the average income growth was nearly the same in each class of society. After 1979, however, the average income of the lower and middle classes rose only 10 to 20 percent, whereas individuals in the top 1 percent experienced an unprecedented income growth of 260 percent.
The rich have been getting exponentially richer while the rest of society, not just the poor, is being left behind. This startling trend of “trickle-up” economics is partially the result of the wealthiest individuals manipulating the electoral process by finding loopholes in campaign laws which allow them to donate money and influence select candidates.
A recent quantitative analysis at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs provides new data to explain why our campaign process must be reformed. According to the study, U.S. senators are significantly more responsive to the opinions of those in the upper income brackets than the middle classes. Moreover, the responsiveness of senators to those in the lowest third of the income distribution is virtually nonexistent. This study controls for both voter turnout and political knowledge, providing robust evidence that the difference in senatorial responsiveness is a direct result of income disparity.
The political climate has led candidates from both parties to become more conservative in their economic views as of late. The result has been support for lower taxes for the wealthy and less financial regulation. One can easily see how Congress has favorably promoted corporate interests. From the 1981 Economic Recovery and Tax Act to the 2001 Bush tax cuts, big business has triumphed at the expense of the majority.
Although opponents of a public finance system have argued it would restrict freedom of speech, the very foundation of democracy is crumbling to pieces under our current system. What is the point of free speech when towers of money drown out the voices of the citizens?
If we do not make changes to our current campaign process and find ways to limit the influence of money in politics, legislation which favors the wealthy will continue to be passed. The growing chasm between the top 1 percent and the rest of society will become even more distant, and the government which we call “democracy” will move even closer to the capitalist oligarchies of Brazil, Mexico and Russia.