Despite appearances, American politicians rarely if ever support the interests of their constituents. According to a Princeton study, public opinion has little or no influence on American politicians.
The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
It is, however, perfectly legal to buy political influence in America, and the richer you are, the more you can afford. The study described in this video makes it clear that only by lobbying can political control be exercised.
In recent decades the trend of purchasing political power has increased astronomically. Where once there may have been a small measure of balance, the US government is now controlled exclusively by those who can afford to control the pool from which politicians are selected.
By funding a select group of candidates well enough, they're placed high above the less desirable competition. Their visibility is pervasive across their regions, their campaign management is far above the rest, their speech writers are the most convincing. More TV, more social media, more intelligent persuasion consultants... more of everything that's shown itself to win elections.
Therefore, by financing only the candidates that prove willing to support their contributors' causes, it's virtually guaranteed that the result of any election that's important to you will be satisfying. There's no need to select the actual individual who wins. You pay for the campaign of all the competators and you can't lose. No matter who wins each race, the slots you need are yours before the first vote is cast.
If you're thinking the price of this is too high to make it a valid option, then consider the millions being provided by successful corporations and individuals. What are the odds those dollars are being contributed to candidates who won't support their wishes? How likely is it that these dollars represent a loss to the bottom line?
A year-long analysis by the Sunlight Foundation suggests that the $5.8 billion in federal lobbying and campaign contributions from America's most politically active corporations yeilded a return of $4.4 trillion in federal business and support.
There are, of course, more conservative estimates. A harvard study suggests that great bennefits rarely come of campaign finance and usually result in little more than a "breaking even" effect. However, this too is significant considering the twenty richest people control more wealth than half the nation's citizens.
See also: Wealth Distribution for the USA
It seems rational to believe that a breaking-even effect, particularly in combination with the possibility of potentially staggering profits, would encourage anyone above the mid-Texas line to contribute as much as seemed necessary - even if it were only to preserve the status quo!
Political Evolution
None of this is meant to imply the amount of campaign-finance money is the deciding factor in any given election. There are clearly many circumstantial factors that can match to individual candidate fitness - it's these that determine any political race. The issue here is that a certain cash threshold is necessary to make a candidate known to the public, and large-scale campaign-finance provides it to those of the candidates who will "play ball".
For elected officials, survival strategy starts with one simple rule: Get and maintain the support of those who provide the help you need to get into (and stay in) office. Those who won't promise to comply with the wishes of their benefactors are not provided the money and support required to get elected. Those who don't make good on those promises will, for lack of money and support, not be reelected. That's "survival of the fittest" in American politics.
When asked his opinion of the 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decsion, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter replied:
It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it's just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we've just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. ... At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.
A contributing factor in Carter's win was the state of awareness during his campaign of the effects of money in politics. Since his time, the American people have been lulled into believing that a conflict of interest is OK; that correlation not only doesn't prove causation, but maybe even has nothing to do with it! There is no excuse for this except the old truism: If a lie is repeated enough times, people will begin to believe it.
Properly regulated capitalism can be a great boon to humanity, but campaign finance has led to its deregulation, which has turned it into a tool for oppression only.
Who do Politicians Represent?
As previously established, controlling which political candidates appear to the public (and how well they appear) does not mean actual selection of the individual who wins, but does provide a high degree of control over what laws will be made. Therefore, laws are ultimately in the hands of those who can, in effect, purchase their creation.
James Glattfelder's TED Talk describes a study based on the science of Complexity that shows a core of 737 shareholders - mostly financial institutions in the United States and UK - control 80% of the world's capital. Further, a subset of 146 has the potential to control 40% of it. [More on that.]
The basics of Universal Darwinism dictate that those at the top in an envoronment as competitive as ours are the most "fit" individuals. They and their organizations represent the apex of drive and ability. Beyond any doubt, they're very good at what they do: at using money to make more money.
It may be reasoned that their expertise in one field does not imply expertise in other important fields. To the contrary, it would seem an exceptional focus is likely required to maintained these vast capitalistic empires. It might be more than reasonable to guess that other important fields are neglected, resulting in a full range of real world costs - of which they may be ignorant - that come as a result of their activities.
One thing is certain: they're not willing to pay those costs. The state of capitalism is such that, absent a court order, they may not even consider it. Such is the value placed on "a good quarterly statement". They remain focused on their task, not only ignoring other problems - problems that range from painful to potentially apocolyptic - but even preventing the solution to such problems in the interest of gaining more profit.
References
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=E2DC51768E60EC3FD879B9740346BDA2?doi=10.1.1.668.8647&rep=rep1&type=pdf
- https://dv9jgklhamlge.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Explainer_prob2.jpg?5c7af7
- http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/
- https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2018&ind=F07
- https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig
- https://youtu.be/NgbqXsA62Qs
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
- https://www.psprint.com/resources/election-marketing-tips/
- https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-biggest-corporate-political-interests-spend-billions-get-trillions/
- https://audienti.com/roles/campaign-manager/
- http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1940161216674651
- https://scholar.harvard.edu/jsnyder/files/8._cf.return.regs__0.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment