The already vast chasm between how we think and talk about politics, and how politics really works, continues to widen. The recent Supreme Court’s campaign finance ruling (Citizens United) reversed a century of law limiting the ability of business to affect political outcomes. But a conservative Court, out of compassion for corporations which long ago mastered techniques for circumventing the law, has abolished the few remaining spending constraints.
True, corporations still cannot contribute directly to political campaigns. But since a major portion of campaign funds goes toward advertising, and corporations are legally permitted – for the first time - to relieve politicians and parties of that burden, what is the logical outcome? Corporations have owned politicians in the past, but ownership was fluid. The Supreme Court ruling authorizes direct purchase of politicians at all levels, and thereby transfers governance at all levels to those with bulging bank balances. No doubt the interest of the wealthiest among us will be served, but we may be left with a form of democracy that makes China seem liberal.
In the short run, this seems to aid Republicans. But Darwinian Democrats, fighting for survival, can undergo genetic changes as well. In the long run, no one wins but those who agree with Ayn Rand that money is the appropriate arbiter of human survival.
Like the rest of us, politicians are motivated by a combination of values and priorities. Nearly all holders of public office value power and position, and all see themselves as abler servants of their constituents than any possible rival. The only antidote to abuses – term limits – is beyond our reach. So America will, more than ever, be run by boards of directors who bankroll the campaign advertising of the candidate who best aligns himself with their corporate priorities. Ergo, America’s brief experiment in participatory democracy is in cardiac arrest. If you doubt this, ask John McCain or Russ Feingold.
No comments:
Post a Comment