The role of wealth in elections

political analysis by Dr. Eric Baker

Editor's note: This commentary is part of a collaboration between the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith and The City Wire to deliver an ongoing series of political-based essays and reports. Dr. Eric Baker joined the UAFS faculty in 2008 and has a doctorate in political science from the University of Florida. He teaches several different courses in the political science department, including American National Government, State and Local Government, The American Presidency, Public Policy, and International Relations. Baker previously taught at the University of Richmond in Virginia and East Carolina University in North Carolina.

Opinions, commentary and other essays posted in this space are wholly the view of the author(s). They may not represent the opinion of the owners of The City Wire.

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have troubled a number of Americans who care about rule by the people. But before we discuss these cases, a brief history is in order.

From the earliest days of the republic, wealth and politics have gone together. In 1787 during the constitutional convention, there was considerable debate over who should be able to vote for representatives in the House. There were many at the convention who held that only those with property should be given the franchise. This belief came about out of suspicions of the masses without property. Pennsylvania delegate Gouverneur Morris claimed that giving those without property the right to vote would lead them to sell those votes to the rich.

James Madison, delegate from Virginia and sometimes called the father of the Constitution, made a similar claim. Madison, defending the new Constitution, claimed that a free society is undermined by faction, and “the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination.”

Marx was not the first to speak of class warfare; one of our own founding fathers came before him.

The new Constitution, with its checks and balances, was meant to minimize the power of the masses in favor of an elite ruling class. Only the House of Representatives had direct elections by the people; the Senate was to be chosen by the respective state assemblies, and the president was to be selected by the Electoral College. But even with the House, there were restrictions based on wealth – let alone race and gender. Only those white men with sufficient land and/or money were allowed to vote. It was only well into the 1800s that these restrictions were lifted by the states who determine voter eligibility.

Today, we are seeing a return to the days of rule by the few. The gap in incomes of the 1% and the rest of us are increasing. We are returning to rule by the few, a return to oligarchy.

A study by Princeton researchers show that the wealthy have a greater impact on politics than their numbers, while the rest of us, the 99%, would justly warrant. The top 1% of the top 1% donates roughly 28% of the total amount of campaign money in any given election cycle.

sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/12/13/the-political-one-percent-of-the-one-percent/

The extreme wealthy are not ashamed of this. Tom Perkins, a billionaire venture capitalist, jokingly suggests that voting should be based similar to a corporation, where the biggest shareholders get the biggest say; $1 million buys you one million votes. He even suggests (again, jokingly) that the wealthy are being persecuted in a similar fashion as the Jews in Nazi Germany.

We know that money plays an inordinate influence in our political system. It always has.  The first attempt to rein in this influence was in 1971 with the creation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to monitor and regulate campaign in contributions. In 2002 a following up act was passed. The McCain-Feingold bill, a bi-partisan bill designed to limit campaign contributions to political candidates, intended to not to eliminate money from elections but to regulate who gave the money and how much.

Advertisement:

However in recent years the Supreme Court has weakened these restrictions. Citizens United, decided in 2010, held that corporations had the same First Amendment rights as individuals, thus effectively giving corporations the ability to donate as much money to political activities as they wish (having earlier decided that donating money was a type of free speech; corporations are people, too). A follow up case decided this year, McCutcheon v. FEC, ruled that there were no limits for individuals giving to political campaigns.

As citizens we should be concerned about this. As Lincoln said in a very famous speech, this nation should have a “government of the people, by the people, for the people, and not a privileged few. If it is the latter, then as a republic,  we will disappear from the earth.

Five Star Votes: 
Average: 4.6 (10 votes)

Like This Article? Share It!

Comments

eric baker opinion

beware of politicians bearing history lessons. emon mahony

The role of wealth in elections

Thanks you for stating what is happening. I completely agree.

The American Magic Act: Last Best Hope Disappears

The train already left the station, the yacht left the dock, the private jet has taken-off with the nation's wealth and freedom. It's called global plutocracy, oligopoly. Whatever else you call it, the American experiment was just a blip of a couple of centuries on history's timeline. We're done for; get over it.

Socialism smooths out the highs and lows of Capitalism,

only thing is it does so by removing the high part mainly. Read an article today which indicated the last thing many wanted when the constitution was written was for every one to have an equal say in what happens. An inadvertent blip I guess we were then. Women and minorities were about the first ones to get cut out and some also tried to make it property owners only. Listed as a duty of the US Military it includes protecting US business interests abroad as in future Barbary pirates no doubt. But these days what if the company has no plants here, it keeps most of the money outside the US to avoid taxes and is basically only incorporated in the US? Not my grandkid.