Since the start, American politics have always been a messy, riotous affair. But the chaos of the democratic process has ever been tempered by basic principles of fair practice… at least in theory. Since the Citizens United decision of 2010, the balance of the American political landscape has shifted into something bizarre and oddly familiar all at once.
The ruling, at its core, lifted the federal ban on independent expenditures by corporations and unions to influence federal elections. It concluded that a corporation is entitled to the same First Amendment rights as a United States citizen — giving corporations the freedom to pour unlimited, unregulated amounts of cash into political action committees (super PACs), which the Supreme Court has deemed an exercise of protected speech.
Citizens United, which passed by a 5-4 margin, has significantly altered the character of campaign finance in the U.S., and the full ramifications of this momentous decision are being seen now, in this election cycle.
The presidential election exceeded a stunning $2 billion in campaign fundraising last week, with an estimated $300 million of those funds coming from super PACs, the Washington Post reports:
“Nearly $300 million in donations involving super PACs since early 2011, as well as tens of millions more in donations to nonprofit groups that run election-related ads but don’t have to disclose their donors.
This is a perversion of the democratic process. It compromises our American ideals of fairness and equality. How can every voice be considered equal, how can the average Americans take ownership of the democratic process, when their voices are being drowned out by hundreds of millions of anonymous dollars from corporations and other special interests?
The outrageous abuses that Citizens United gave rise to do not stop at corporations funneling millions into Senate races and the presidential election. As reported by The New York Times and others, many large companies have begun sending out memos to their employees about the election, their vote, and what their vote could mean for their future employment:
“The economy doesn’t currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job, however, is another four years of the same presidential administration,” timeshare executive David Siegel wrote in a letter to his 7,000 employees. “If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current president plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company.”
In an interview with the Times, Siegel said he was not pressuring employees to vote in a certain way:
“I really wanted them to know how I felt four more years under President Obama was going to affect them. It would be no different from telling your children: ‘Eat your spinach. It’s good for you.’”
It is absurd that the United States has entered into an era wherein any employer can intimidate his employees into voting a certain way, or not voting at all. It is absurd that $2 billion has been poured into this campaign, turning a democratic election into a contest of resources. It is absurd that a corporation can funnel unlimited amounts of money into super PACs that can then wage massive advertising campaigns up until the moment the polls close.
Above all, it is absurd that anyone could pretend that this is democracy in action, rather than a brutal push by moneyed interests to finalize dominion over American politics, the definition of plutocracy.
So why is the current political climate of rule-by-wealth so familiar? Because it’s happened in this country before, over a century ago: During the period from1877 to 1893, the United States experienced enormous growth, or at least, American corporations did, to the disadvantage of everyone else (much like now).
This period in history, wherein the gap between rich and poor was comparable to that of today, is known as the Gilded Age — named after the Mark Twain novel of the same name, which satirized the era as a time of deep social problems hidden beneath a thin veneer of gold.
Twain’s criticism of the intrusion of money into American politics is best summarized in his own words:
“We have also touched upon one sad feature, and it is one which we found little pleasure in handling. That is the shameful corruption which lately crept into our politics, and in a handful of years has spread until the pollution has affected some portion of every State and every Territory in the Union. But I have a great strong faith in a noble future for my country. A vast majority of the people are straightforward and honest; and this late state of things is stirring them to action. If it would only keep on stirring them until it became the habit of their lives to attend to the politics of the country personally, and put only their very best men into positions of trust and authority! That day will come.”
This excerpt comes from the preface of the London edition of Twain’s book, and never made it into the American editions. Perhaps these blunt words were never intended for sensitive American readers.
And yet, even though this passage was printed over a hundred years ago, it remains as painfully relevant now as it was then. After all this time, perhaps America is ready to heed Twain’s message.
—
Apolitical is a blog that covers current events, politics and culture from a progressive perspective — bringing the world at large to the Malibubble, one post at a time.
