Citizens United, the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited corporate spending in American federal elections, has created a political firestorm on the political Left as the specter of even more money influencing elections and empowering the rich at the expense of the poor. The outrage, while legitimate, reveals a weakness in our politics that obfuscates similarly important problems: we tend to focus on new problems and ignore continuing ones. I believe that Citizens United was a disastrous ruling that only consolidates electoral, political, and policy power into the hands of America's plutocrats; they, of course, will use this power to continue the subjugation of the poor. The truth, however, is that big money is an after-the-fact concern that pales in comparison to congressional redistricting in terms of impact and perversion of the political system. This decennial exercise, akin to a gentlemens agreement to divide the states between the Democratic and Republican political cartels, is a far bigger threat to our democracy that the money that flows into our elections.
We have little real choice in our elections. Even with low double digit congressional approval ratings, my guess is that at least 80 percent of House incumbents seeking reelection will win. Here is a number that should open some eyes: 95 percent of all House members who sought reelection between 1982 through 2004 were reelected. Expanding the time horizon changes the numbers but not their effect. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, between 1964 and 2010, the incumbent in the House was reelected between 85 percent and 98 percent of the time; the majority of those election cycles resulted in incumbent reelection rates of at least 90 percent. Those are Kim Jung Il and Robert Mugabe numbers that legitimately call into question the fundamental tenet of American democracy: the use of elections express the representative will of the people. A system with historically low approval ratings for Congress yet ridiculously high reelection rates cannot be seen as an accurate reflection of voter will.
As a candidate, having all the money in the world won't matter much if the district in which you run is ideologically different from your politics. Similarly, eliminating big money from politics won't matter if there is an ideological mismatch in the district. The policy consequences that stem from illegitimate political power have long compromised the American political system. Concerned activists and pundits must pay more attention to this critical issue.
Michael K. Fauntroy is associate professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of Republicans and the Black Vote. He blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com and can be followed on Twitter @MKFauntroy.
Follow Michael Fauntroy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MKFauntroy
If you want elections to matter, then you need to be able to fire your elected representatives. This is nearly impossible because of the campaign finance laws. These laws are really incumbent protection laws. They make it almost impossible for challengers to raise competitive funding, while doing almost nothing to control the true causes of government corruption.
We were told that the campaign finance laws—the contribution limits and the reporting requirements—would curtail or even prevent corruption. Now, with 40 years of experience, we know that they do the exact opposite.
Powerful special interests have more control than ever. While it may be true that campaign contributions "buy" some small amount of access, or influence, it's very clear that other factors are far more important.
The Newspaper Preservation Act was working its way through congress and was designed to grant antitrust relief to the affected newspapers. Richard Nixon and his, Attorney General, were on record as strongly opposed to the passage of the Newspaper Preservation Act.
A newspaper executive wrote a letter to President Nixon as his re-election approached. The letter reminded President Nixon that the nation’s largest Newspaper chains published in those states that had the largest number of electoral votes. The carefully worded letter reminded President Nixon that it could be difficult to be re-elected without their editorial support.
Nixon reversed his position and convinced Congress to pass the Newspaper Preservation Act.
Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.
The newly minted campaign laws should have chastised the 4th estate as well as Nixon? Instead the Federal Election Campaign Reform Act exempted corporate media from campaign laws and created the “State Approved Press”.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_Preservation_Act_of_1970
The first federal law in this arena, passed in 1907, was also a ban on corporate contributions to campaigns. The law was dubbed the Tillman Act, after its sponsor, South Carolina senator "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman. Tillman wrote and said little of his motives for sponsoring the ban on corporate contributions, but he hated President ¬Theodore Roosevelt and appears to have wanted to embarrass the president (who had relied heavily on corporate funding in his 1904 election campaign). Tillman's racial politics also clearly contributed to his interest in controlling corporate spending: Many corporations opposed the racial segregation that was at the core of Tillman's political agenda. Corporations did not want to pay for two sets of rail cars, double up on restrooms and fountains, or build separate entrances for customers of different races. They also wanted to take advantage of inexpensive black labor, while Tillman sought to keep blacks out of the work force.
Corporations supported Republicans, and Tillman — a Democrat, like most post-war Southern whites — often bragged of his role in perpetrating voter fraud and intimidation in the presidential election of 1876 in order to overthrow South Carolina's Republican reconstruction government. It is clear, then, that Tillman was no "good government" reformer; and far from being born of lofty ideals, federal campaign-finance regulations were, from their inception, tied to questionable efforts to gain partisan advantage.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2012/02/gerrymandering-geological-deceit-2.html
"It's one of the great truisms in politics - "money buys elections" [Freakonomics co-author Stephen Dubner] says. "But it's just really not so."
Citing the research of his co-author and University of Chicago economics professor Steven Levitt has done, Dubner says a candidate who doubles their spending gets an extra 1% of the popular vote. Conversely, candidates who halved their spending lost 1% of the vote. This is true in races where the same candidates run against each other multiple times and when other factors, such as the power of incumbency, are controlled for.
Candidates that vote as promised are reelected, the 10% that vote otherwise are not.
If (say) 50% lost every election, it would mean voting is unreliable, and democracy doesn't work.
But voters are right 90% of time, a good sign our democracy works.
Would companies be better off if they fired more than 10% of their employees every four years?
Here's a clue: if Congress reps are failures, it's your fault, you put them there. A majority voted for them, and money didn't buy those voters. People vote their minds, not what TV ads tell them.
Both the Left and Right think their people in Congress are great, it's the other side that doesn't represent voters and needs to go. Which proves they are both wrong, and we have a Congress that represents us. The majority, not the Left and Right, which combined are a minority in the US. We are not an ideological country, politicos here just don't get it.
Do you know what propoganda is ( hint it didn't end with Nazi Germany)?
Do you think we would have earmarks or loopholes in every piece of legislation ?
The whole GOP field is doing nothing but war mongering, trying to outlaw contaception and abortion, gay hating, immigrant bashing etc....... a bunch of BS talking points made up by Roger Ailes and Karl Rove to distract from real problems.
If our democracy was working the GOP would be talking about jobs, education, and infrastructure....What's important for America to be a great country
You're giving people way too much credit. One would have to know WHO their representative is in the first place before they would know how he/she voted. Do a poll. Stop people on the street and ask them who their state leaders are. I'm betting you would be lucky to find 10% know the answer.
Term limits shoulds apply to all family members also for a period of 8yrs.