Money is power, there has never been any argument there, but where does that leave those without money? Powerless? When it comes to the electoral system of the United States, the ideal has always been that of "one person, one vote," whereas the historical reality has always been anything but. The United States has an electoral setup that revolves around money, often making it harder for the average American to become objectively informed about politics. According to the Dictionary of Sociology, political sociology is the “branch of sociology which is concerned with the social causes and consequences of given power distributions within or between societies, and with the social and political conflicts that lead to changes in the allocation of power.”[1] These power distributions routinely surface during the election cycle, when information presented to the general public typically has a subversive purpose of convincing the electorate to vote one way or another. But does the influence of money stop once polls close on Election Day? Or do groups that finance political campaigns able to increase their influence over politicians based on that monetary support? A desire for power drives politicians, but is it true power if they are subject to the interests of private enterprise? With that realization, a third party enters the ring. The people, the politicians, and the special interests. The voter, the candidate, and the money-holders. Who prevails in the fight for political power? How many Americans even know a war is being waged?

 

            Every so often, a light is shined on the lobbying industry, allowing an inside look at the special interests that try and control the future of American politics. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down their decision in the matter of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The question at hand was whether Citizens United, a conservative lobbying group, could air a documentary film on cable television entitled Hillary: The Movie, as well as advertise for it. Critics interpreted the film as being critical of Hillary Clinton, then a candidate for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. The FEC cited the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, otherwise known as the McCain-Feingold Act, which “prohibited ‘electioneering communication,’ or mentioning a candidate, in a broadcast, cable, or satellite transmission 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election. The law also prevented corporations (including non-profit corporations) and unions from underwriting such electioneering communication.”[2] The Supreme Court found that this part of the McCain-Feingold Act was unconstitutional, as it infringed upon the First Amendment right to free speech. With the ruling, the court “struck down restrictions against corporations, unions, and advocacy groups’ funding ads that support or oppose political candidates and reasoned that there was ‘no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures.’”[3] And so the current state of affairs has corporations being able to affect what the average American sees in their daily lives, such as on television, in print, or online.

 

            There are two deeper issues raised by the Citizens United ruling that have long lasting ramifications on the United States. The first of which is a realization that based on the decision, the Supreme Court of the United States says that corporations are people too, or at least they deserve the same rights as people. Not only is this a radical interpretation of the Constitution, but also it has dire consequences, the least of which that a corporation has access to monetary resources that the large majority of Americans do not. This possession of increased financial reserves means that private interests now have a place in the public sphere and corporations can now exercise their Supreme Court-guaranteed right to free speech as much as they want. Justice John Paul Stevens sums up these worries in the Citizens United dissent:

 

The Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.[4]

 

Many Americans have an interest in exercising their right to vote, but often do not have the time to perform extensive research on candidates running for office. Thus, their vote might rest in a preconceived notion of a certain political power, or in this case, impressions received from media exposure. Corporations have the power to air advertisements for specific candidates on television, a widely used media source for the American people, as well as run advertisements online and in newspapers, other sources relied on for information. With the Citizens United ruling, corporations now have an increased ability to affect who enters public office and also have an invested interest in manipulating the populace into electing the candidate who will most accurately represent said corporation’s beliefs.

 

            But what about once a candidate is in office? Are they to be beholden to different interest groups that got them there through means such as donations, volunteer hours, etc.? Lynda W. Powell is a political scientist and professor at the University of Rochester. She has a unique take on how the effect of campaign contributions lasts beyond Election Day:

 

While methodologically [makes] it difficult to estimate the causal influence of donations, the larger problem is that much of the influence of donations is likely to occur earlier in the legislative process, when decisions are made about earmarks and other details of legislation that matter greatly to donors.[5]

 

Pulling the shade back on the inner workings of American politics has the effect of showing the public how misdirected investigations into corruption are. It is not the votes that are affected, but the preparation. Powell goes into more specifics in an article in The Washington Post:

 

What voting studies cannot detect are the important, but less observable, pathways where money is more likely to shape legislation. Members have many opportunities, especially in the committee process, to structure the details of legislation to a donor’s advantage. Often subtle changes, even altering the wording of a single sentence, can matter to a contributor. Equally important, studying votes ignores the opportunities lawmakers have to kill a bill quietly and prevent it from coming to a vote. As Tom Loftus, former Speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly stated, ‘The truest thing I can say about special interest money is that it is mainly given to buy the status quo.’ Unfortunately, unlike votes on bills, these actions don’t leave a readily observable data trail for us to study.[6]

 

The point that Powell is making is that the real political power comes not from the outcome of a vote, but what is actually being voted on. The legislation that gets to the floor of Congress goes through committees and revisions, plenty of opportunity for special interest groups to make their thoughts known about the legislation. Legislators can also add amendments or loopholes as they (or the special interest groups) see fit. In American politics, this concept of legislation is known as "pork-barrel" and has plagued the political sphere for ages. Auburn University’s Glossary of Political Economy Terms defines pork-barrel legislation broadly, but with obvious results:

 

Appropriations of public funds by Congress (or other legislative assemblies) for projects that do not serve the interests of any large portion of the country's citizenry but are nevertheless vigorously promoted by a small group of legislators because they will pump outside taxpayers' money and resources into the local districts these legislators represent. Successful promotion of such pork-barrel legislation…is very likely to get the legislator re-elected by his constituents.[7]

 

As is clear, big money has an unfair advantage in the political sphere that the average American lacks. Access is everything and money buys it, something lobbyists and interest groups have plenty of. This behind the scenes interference is exactly the kind of backroom shenanigans that the American public deserves to have out in the open. Voters should know with whom elected officials are getting into bed.

 

            Society now faces an important question: how to change this status quo. Big business can fund advertisements for specific candidates on television, in print, and on the Internet. These same businesses then hold sway over elected officials, having made technically legal campaign contributions that aided in election. The next step is to make it clear certain political positions that the businesses have and would appreciate if the official strongly considered. If the politician takes up those positions, then the business will consider helping with a reelection campaign, a critical venture for many politicians. In this parable of the American electoral process there is one group that is nowhere to be found: the American people. According to Pew Research Center, only about 53% of Americans even know the political party of their representative.[8] Instead, they trust what they see in the media and on the web. The key to all of this is to get money out of politics. As this is so unrealistic in the modern era, one important step that can be made to alleviate at least some of the problems would be to remove contributions from corporations or big business. We can make elections smaller and based more on the facts and the issues, not irrelevant things like who can raise the most money for their war chest. The only obstacle is that Congress is content with the status quo. They like how things work because it works for them. It is not until they hear from the average American that enough is enough, that they will seriously consider a change in policy.

 

 

[1] Gordon Marshall. "political sociology." A Dictionary of Sociology. 1998. Encyclopedia.com. 26 Mar. 2015 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

 

[2] Rebekah L. Fox and Ann E. Burnette. “Reframing Corporations as Individuals: The ‘Persuasive Marvels’ Unleashed by the Citizens United Ruling”, First Amendment Studies. Published online: 07 November 2013.

 

[3] Ibid.

 

[4] Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, (2010) (Stevens J. dissenting opinion)

 

[5] Powell, Lynda W. “The Influence of Campaign Contributions on Legislative Policy” The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics Vol. 11, No. 3 (October 2013), p. 339-355. http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/papers/02_Powell_Influence.pdf

 

[6] Powell, Lynda W. “How money talks in state legislatures” The Washington Post. 5 Nobember 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/05/the-influence-of-money-in-u-s-politics/

 

[7] Johnson, Paul M. “pork-barrel legislation” A Glossary of Political Economy Terms. http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/pork-barrel_legislation

 

[8] “GOP Has Midterm Engagement Advantage” 24 July 2014. http://www.people-press.org/2014/07/24/gop-has-midterm-engagement-advantage/