Posted on by

Big money rules in politics

Big money rules in politics

4 minute read

Rob Miraldi
| Special to the USA TODAY Network

play

Stone Ridge, New York – population 1,900 – is located 90 miles north of New York City, in the shadow of the Catskill Mountains. The hamlet is listed on the National Historic Register because the homes that greet visitors range from stately colonial-era stone mansions to Federal and Greek Revival-style buildings, a collection found nowhere else in America.

Wealthy people live here and it is difficult to find a house for less than $500,000. But poor people also live here. On Main Street, near a historic portico, is the Rondout Valley Food Pantry, founded 35 years ago. It’s a busy place. People are hungry.

In the neighboring city of Rochester, 3,580 people lined up for 35,000 meals at the food bank in 2023. Ten miles away, at the tiny Rosendale Food Pantry, people come looking for food.

“I’ll be on my feet soon,” one man told me. “Knee surgery paralyzed me – only temporarily.”

Eleven miles from where I live in Stone Ridge is Kingston, New York, a barren town of 23,900; 18% of the population lives in poverty. The People’s Place, a thriving food pantry, provides fresh produce to over 1,200 people every Tuesday from May through October. They line up.

And yet by the end of this presidential and congressional election, candidates will raise $20 billion in campaign contributions. 20 billion dollars!

That’s a lot of money that doesn’t go to the Hudson Valley Regional Food Bank, which last year provided 40 million meals to 350,000 people each month. I could substitute the names of cities across New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania — where this column is distributed — and the conclusions would be the same: Our priorities are messed up.

What is driving the fundraising boom in our elections? Concentrated wealth

The money flowing into this election — the most ever raised and spent — comes “from concentrated sources of wealth that will ultimately help dictate public policy,” says Dan Weiner, director of the Brennan’s elections and government program Center for Justice. “Candidates have to court the richest donors. Food pantries are typically not a top priority for these donors.”

Weiner, a lawyer who has tracked campaign contributions since 2016, says he knows many committed elected officials who care about food supplies — and poverty. But it’s “a very small group of people who write $100,000 or $1 million checks” who call the shots, he says. It would make a “big difference if the money came from ordinary people,” he emphasizes. Maybe pantries would be important.

According to Weiner, major donors often want “access and influence” that will positively impact their bottom line. So this election year, only 50 billionaire families have already donated over $600 million. About 70% supported Republican candidates and conservative causes.

And while who donates to political campaigns is often hidden, Donald Trump is very transparent. In April, he met with oil industry executives — Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips — and asked for $1 billion to support his campaign. Sure, they said; Just stifle the “green” agenda and give us regulatory relief.

Don’t get me wrong. The demands for money come from both sides. After President Joe Biden dropped out of the race, Vice President Kamala Harris quickly raised a billion dollars. She raised $28 million at an event in Los Angeles and spent $77 million on Facebook and Instagram advertising. This money did not come from people visiting food banks online.

The stakes have been raised in the last three elections: $6 billion was raised in 2016; $14.4 billion in 2020; $18 billion to $20 billion this year. “The spending is like an arms race,” Weiner says. “It just keeps going.”

The two parties make nearly equal amounts each cycle, although the Democrats are ahead in this election. In 2020, Biden raised $900 million and Trump raised $700 million.

Rob Miraldi In a high-stakes election, free speech is at stake

Where is our democracy with all this money?

United States observers are engaged in a heated debate about whether we are a true democracy. If so, the people would have more say; certain groups would not be so discouraged from participating; the right to vote would be unlimited; Rules for participating in elections would not be so Byzantine; And if someone gets more votes than their opponent in a presidential election, they might actually be the winner.

And these are all good things to discuss – and fix. But it’s a stupid debate. What makes America undemocratic is the way we elect candidates. We buy them. By “we” I mean people and companies who can spend unlimited amounts. The financial industry donated $86 million in 2020; the unions donated $57 million; Healthcare company $49 million. The people standing in line at the food pantry have no chance against this financial power.

“This means,” Weiner explains, “funding sources are not at all representative of the public as a whole.” Money is being spent on priorities that are not most important to Americans.”

And increasingly, we don’t even know who these people are who are buying the store.

“As much of politics has moved online, traditional black money is much harder to track,” Weiner points out. “Online political advertising is subject to almost no transparent regulations.”

In 2016, Weiner called campaign finance rules a “farce” and wrote, “Candidates and support groups often coordinate their activities to circumvent campaign finance rules.” Powerful interests band together to shield such behavior from public scrutiny. “

You understand the connection, don’t you? If you own the store, you decide on the products. Once the fat cats own the government, the people are no longer in charge. Why talk about democracy at all?

Since the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that there are no limits on how much a person or company can donate to elections, we have been dealing with a plutocracy. Rule of the rich. But you already knew that. The only problem is how little democracy and transparency is left.

Weiner says the public understands.

“On hardly any other topic is there such a consensus among the public,” he asserts. “They are frustrated about money in politics. It’s one of those issues that crosses partisan lines among normal people.”

Solution? A constitutional amendment that would allow us to control money and overturn the Supreme Court ruling. Weiner says the 2010 decision required lawmakers to close loopholes to allow “dark money” to thrive.

“Republican voters are almost as angry as Democrats,” Weiner emphasizes. At the moment we cannot limit contributions, but we can ensure transparency.

Big money may still rule, but at least we know who is going to the brothel and can make a judgment call with the information in our pockets. But apart from these reforms, I still send my money to food distribution points.

Rob Miraldi’s First Amendment novel has won numerous awards. He taught journalism for many years at the State University of New York. Twitter: @miral98; Email: [email protected]