Diminishing democracy
How the influence of money in politics takes away our voice
Photo courtesy of Daniel Huizinga/Flickr
Bernie Sanders captured attention through his campaigns in 2016 and 2020 for his adamant refusal to rely on support from super PACs, defined by Campaign Legal Center as a political committee that “may accept unlimited contributions from any non-foreign source” and “may spend unlimited amounts to influence the outcome of federal elections through independent expenditures.” Instead, he focused on gaining financial support from small-dollar donors; in his 2016 campaign, according to the Center for Public Integrity, he raised about $237 million, many of whom “heeded a call to give $27.” In his repeated assertion that he did not want support from any super PACs, he called attention to a pressing issue in our political system: how money from super PACs and lobbyists influences our elected officials and effectively silences our voices.
In 2010, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down regulations on independent political expenditures. According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the court, in a 5-4 decision, held that “the rule that political speech cannot be limited based on a speaker’s wealth is a necessary consequence of the premise that the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker’s identity.” Essentially, the court decided that money is speech, and that corporations were included in the protections that decision implies.
This decision allowed for the creation of the aforementioned super PACs, which are permitted to collect unlimited funds so long as they do not coordinate with candidates, and their sources for funding are made available. However, super PACs can—and do—find and exploit loopholes to get around those stipulations. This results in a system in which those political actions committees and their donors go largely unchecked, and play a significant role in our elections and subsequently the actions of our elected officials.
The Roosevelt Institute noted that the 2024 election cycle “saw the highest level of billionaire spending in American history,” with “billionaire donors and their families” donating “over $2.6 billion.” The organization also observed that “nearly three-quarters of billionaires’ spending on the 2024 presidential race supported the reelection of Donald Trump,” who has famously supported and produced massive—and widely unpopular—tax cuts for the wealthy. It is no surprise that he garnered such support from the billionaires of our country, but it should be alarming to us all that the interests of our wealthiest citizens seem to dominate policy decisions, while the needs of the vast majority of the country go unaddressed.
In discussing the influence of money in politics, some students referenced specific concerns regarding the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an organization that lobbies for pro-Israel policies and a strong relationship between the United States and Israel. AIPAC maintains an affiliated super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP), which, according to OpenSecrets, raised $87.18 million and spent $61.37 million in the 2024 election cycle. AIPAC, in addition to the UDP, also runs AIPAC PAC, whose website states that it supported “361 pro-Israel Democratic and Republican candidates in 2024” with “more than $53 million in direct support.” Their website also notes that they “helped defeat 24 candidates who would have undermined the U.S.-Israel relationship” and that “96 percent of AIPAC-backed candidates won their general elections.” This monetary influence in our elections might concern citizens, the majority of whom are reported in a recent Pew Research Center survey as viewing the Israeli government unfavorably.
Lobbying could hypothetically serve as a positive way for citizens to engage with our government; it could give us more access to our elected officials, and heighten our ability to press them on issues that matter to us. However, when donors maintain far greater access to our elected officials than non-donors, it is clear that lobbying does not equally serve the interests of all constituents, and instead favors the wealthiest.
One must also consider the “revolving door” in lobbying, which, as described by OpenSecrets, “shuffles former federal employees into jobs as lobbyists, consultants, and strategists just as the door pulls former hired guns into government careers.” The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) analyzed the revolving door in the Pentagon, noting that “defense contractors that hired former Pentagon officials received over $89.3 billion in contract obligations from the Pentagon during fiscal year 2021.” According to POGO, “the close alignment between private sector profits and military decision-making risks distorting defense policy, ultimately costing taxpayers,” raising questions about “whether government officials are making decisions in the best interest of the American public, or in the interest of their own potentially lucrative post-retirement career.”
One student shared a TikTok from @alimcforever, who described lobbying as “a legalized system of elite influence that locks the people out,” further noting that the system allows money to talk “louder than your votes.” Students—and citizens generally—are fed up with feeling like their voices do not matter. A Pew Research Center survey from 2023 found that 80 percent of U.S. adults said “the people who donate money to political campaigns have too much influence on the decisions members of Congress make,” and 73 percent say that “lobbyists and special interest groups have too much influence.”
The influence of money in politics results in a communal sense that our voices as average constituents do not matter. In the same Pew Research Center survey, it was reported that 65 percent of Americans feel “exhausted” when thinking about politics, and only 10 percent reported feeling “hopeful.” We are often told that the solution to our political frustrations is to show up and vote for candidates who advocate for the issues we care about. Nonetheless, many feel that this is not enough, and retort that regardless of their vote, the policies they support will not be enacted due to the influence of billionaires and corporations.
If we are to see positive change in the public’s trust in our institutions and collective political efficacy, we must work to limit the influence of the wealthy in our political decision-making, and pursue policies of transparency and integrity. Hopefully, we can break through the barriers of corruption in our government, instituting a system that is truly by the people, of the people, and for the people—not just those with exorbitant wealth.