Austin Morgan
amorga14@uwyo.edu
The figure of the politician in American society, like the lawyer, is often associated with themes of corruption, greed and fakeness. Though many critics often dismiss stereotypes as essentialist, one cannot help but think that this is not an inaccurate portrait of the politician. Indeed, the social reality of politics today is one centered not on the will of the majority, but on the financial contributions of the wealthy. In short, money is wedded to politics and there appears to be no sign of a divorce anytime soon.
First and foremost, there is a robust relationship between the money politicians spend and the amount of votes they get. The literature on the issue refers to this relationship as the “money/vote relationship” and has attempted to calculate how much it takes to buy the allegiance of the American electorate. In a study on campaign spending and vote acquisition political scientist Allan Gerber concluded that “in the average Senate race, incumbents’ spending advantages gave them an estimated 6 percent increase in vote share.” Here, Gerber illuminates the relationship between money and politics: a significant increase in support from the electorate.
A more startling phenomenon exists in the relationship between money and politics: the direct effect of money on political policy. When the rich and poor disagree on a policy, political policy change reflects the preferences of the rich. This is even truer in the case of lobbyists who donate money to politicians in hopes that they will see their interests reflected in the politician’s voting record (thinking, here, of the National Rifle Association in particular). One impressive commentary on this relationship comes from political scientist Martin Gilens in his book “Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America” published by the esteemed Princeton University Press.
According to the Press: “[Gilens’] findings are staggering: when preferences of low- or middle-income Americans diverge from those of the affluent, there is virtually no relationship between policy outcomes and the desires of less advantaged groups. In contrast, affluent Americans’ preferences exhibit a substantial relationship with policy outcomes whether their preferences are shared by lower-income groups or not. Gilens shows that representational inequality is spread widely across different policy domains and time periods.”
Gilens’ concept of representational inequality highlights that there is not only a disparity in votes among politicians based on campaign spending, but that there is also a disparity in the interests of the poor and political policy. If this representational inequality is to continue, the poor will never see policy change coincide with their interests, or more importantly, their needs.
This culture of monetized politics has produced an even more sinister outcome: the demolition of the democratic process and the exclusion of candidates who would hope to revive it. Renowned economist Gordon Levitt writes that, “[Excess fundraising] discourages potential high-quality challengers who do not have ready access to campaign funding and find fund-raising distasteful.” In this way, politicians who disagree with the commodification of American politics will most likely lose their elections.
Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders is a contemporary example of commodity politics out-grouping genuine candidates. Sanders does not accept funding from large entities and prefers to run his campaign on grassroots donations. Despite this noble ideology, however, Sanders has paid dearly for his refusal to accept sizeable campaign contributions from corporations and other collectives. Sanders is projected to lose against Hillary Clinton, since, unlike him, she has no problem accepting and mobilizing large donations of this kind.
The influence of money on American politics is clear. Unclear, however, is the meaning of this phenomenon for our political culture as a whole. The manifestations of money and politics discussed here are only symptoms of an underlying condition: the commodification of the democratic voice. By integrating capitalism into American politics, we happily trade our political future for commodities, just as we have traded so many other virtues. This is perhaps exactly what philosopher Giles Deleuze meant when he said that political speech is “rotten to the core.”
