One cannot pinpoint the exact date when the power of money began to rival the power of votes, but consider this: in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush and Al Gore raised over $175 million combined, not counting federal matching funds.^a In 2004, George W. Bush and John Kerry pushed that number even higher to almost $550 million.^b Not surprisingly, the trend shows no sign of stopping for next year’s presidential bid. Already, the top-fundraising candidates in each party (Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney) have raised a combined $150 million, with a year to go until the general election.^c The 2006 congressional election was no different. The total amount raised for that election topped $1.4 billion, the highest total ever for a congressional cycle.^d

Locally, the numbers are more manageable—but still alarming. Candidates for the Rhode Island General Assembly raised a total of $1.14 million in 1994, or $1.49 per eligible voter.^e In 2004, the total climbed to $4.62 million, or $5.48 per eligible voter.^f With all of this money pouring in, one is left to wonder what the consequences will be for the system.

Fundamentally, money acts as a gatekeeper for the political system. It truncates the pool of candidates, only grants certain people meaningful interaction with their representatives, unduly burdens elected officials, and discourages people from becoming involved in politics.

It’s pretty hard to directly prove the intuitive claim that large donations are given with strings attached, and that legislators’ votes are often cast in light of their largest donors’ interests, not their constituents’. Some have pointed to large donations and attempted to correlate them with legislation (for example, the resource-extracting industry—such as coal and oil—gave $318.7 million to political campaigns between 1989 and 2002, and received an aggregate of over $33 billion in tax breaks).^g It’s tough to prove because it’s unlikely that a legislator would admit to selling his votes. However, it is clear that the only way to be politically competitive is to be financially competitive with the other candidates. And that means that the only candidates who ever make it to the point of national recognition are ones who tailor their interests and ideologies to large private and corporate donors. The people representing community interests are often unable to compete with those whose ideologies are aligned with big companies. This can’t be the best way to pick public officials.

Further, money filters out people from participating in the political process. Those who are able to run for and win public office must have either an incredible amount of personal wealth or existing social networks consisting of wealthy people. Consequently, the number of contested elections is decreasing, voter turnout is pathetic, and the only people who have meaningful access to their legislators are those who have the money to grab their attention.

Of course, there is always the potential that these large, corporate donors are giving out of benevolence. This idea maintains that these donors are giving to support a specific ideology, not to expect reciprocity in favorable votes on their behalf. If this were the case, then why would the largest donors give to candidates from both major parties running for the same seat? This act of "double-giving" does not pretend to be supporting a specific candidate or ideology, it merely ensures that these donors will have legislative votes on their behalf no matter who wins the election. Goldman Sachs, for example, was the largest "double-giver" in 2004, and was also one of the top five donors for both John Kerry and George W. Bush.^h

Fortunately, there is hope in this bleak picture. This hope lies in the measures taken by citizens of Arizona, Maine, and Connecticut, and in the text of a bill currently in Congress, the Fair Elections Now Act. The "Clean Elections" movement seeks to enact voluntary systems of full public financing of elections whereby if candidates can demonstrate grassroots support among their constituents, then they may use government money to run financially competitive campaigns. This removes the burden of financing and purges the negative influence of special interest dollars flooding the system, thereby strengthening the accountability of officeholders to their constituents and distributing political influence more equitably. Since its passage in Arizona and Maine, voter turnout, the number of contested elections, and the number of women and minorities seeking and obtaining public office has dramatically increased. It has changed the nature of how legislators are forced to interact with their constituents. A new group on campus—Democracy Matters—is currently fighting to bring Clean Elections to Rhode Island.

Nationally, the Fair Elections Now Act (FENA) has support from both sides of the aisle, co-sponsored by Senators Arlen Spector (R-PA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL). Other proponents of the FENA include Senators Joe Biden (D-DE), Barack Obama (D-IL), and John McCain (R-AZ), along with Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and former Senator John Edwards.

Just like national defense, safe roads, and voting machines, elections for public office are a public good; it’s time that we start financing them as such. In a system that maintains private moneyed interests as its gatekeeper, it is unclear how important a role good ideas truly play. ● BC

Democracy Matters Meetings are held every Sunday at 8pm in the Sarah Doyle Women’s Center.