There is an unsettling disconnect if you look at the issues the American people support and want implemented versus the policies Congress enacts. For example, take a look at gun regulation. In 2019, a Quinnipiac poll found that Americans overwhelmingly support a universal background check system, with 86% overall support, 80% among Republicans and 76% among gun owners. However, no such law exists today. Additionally, a 2023 study by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy found that “two-thirds of American voters favor raising the federal minimum wage to $15, including a majority of Democrats but less than half of Republicans”. In 2022, Pew Research found that 88% of adults “say either that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use,” with a similar partisan divide in the minimum wage study.
How is it that in a supposedly “representative democracy,” Congress does not enact the policies the American people support? Simple: we have a broken and unjust campaign finance system.
You have probably heard of the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC decided in 2010. This is arguably the most egregious campaign finance-related court decision in modern American history. It essentially allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited sums of money because limitations would be unconstitutional via the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment. The 5-4 decision took a hatchet to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002’s (a.k.a the McCain-Feingold Act) section on limits of “independent expenditures.” This created the rise of Super PACs, “committees that receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other PACs to finance independent expenditures and other independent political activity,” but a Super PAC couldn’t coordinate with any specific candidate’s campaign.
According to this case, limiting spending money is unconstitutional. Therefore, money equals speech, and hence, those with the most money have the most speech. This presents another problem. OpenSecrets reported in 2022 that “96% of U.S. House races [were] won by the biggest spender”. It’s no secret that candidates want to win, but to gain an advantage, they need money. Lots of it. They often turn to corporations, billionaires and those with lots of money to finance their campaigns, fund opposition research, attack ads and smear their opponents. Essentially, political races aren’t about the issues; they’re purely about who has money and who doesn’t.
Who is unlikely to have oodles and oodles of cash? The working class. Candidates then sell out to those who can give them the most money, forget about the working men and women they are supposed to represent and vote for legislation that would favor the organization or corporation that got them elected. STATNews reported in 2021 that “more than two-thirds of Congress cashed a pharma campaign check in 2020”. You don’t think that influences their voting records? The top recipient of pharma cash was Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), who voted against the Inflation Reduction Act, which capped insulin prices at $35 for seniors on Medicare.
Two other court cases impacted campaign finance laws: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti in 1978 and Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. In Bellotti, “the court struck down a Massachusetts statute which restricted the participation of banks and corporations in state ballot measures based on the first amendment of free speech.” In Valeo, the court ruled that a limitation on independent expenditures was unconstitutional, citing the First Amendment of free speech.
There are things we can do to stop the flow of corporate cash to candidates. You can support candidates who vow not to take any corporate money, like the Justice Democrats. You can call your member of Congress to support the Democracy for All Amendment introduced last year to rein in unrestricted campaign spending. Lastly, you can research who funds your members’ reelection campaigns via OpenSecrets or other campaign tracking websites. Together, we can take back our democracy from corporate spending and have a country that actually represents us all, not just the billionaires and their monetary interests.