Money in Politics: Legalized Corruption

Like all forms of government, democracy is always susceptible to corruption. There is always the risk that politicians, despite being elected to serve the public, will instead govern in the interests of elites and institutions of power. Whether it's money, promises of future privileges, or the threat of support to an opponent, politicians are constantly being pressured to betray their commitment to the public, and the pressure is growing. The amount of money being spent on US elections has been increasing at an alarming pace, causing the cost of running for office to increase beyond the means of all but the rich and well-connected. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United, which opened the flood gates to unlimited anonymous political spending, our democracy is now effectively up for sale to the highest bidder.

Average cost of US Representative's campaign, 1990-2010

This increase in political spending has coincided with a dramatic increase in economic inequality, which means that this increased influence is going exclusively to the richest Americans. Multi-billionares like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson now personally wield the power to make or break political careers and steer the direction of national politics. Super PACs (political action committees), a new legal concoction that came out of the Citizens United ruling, is simply a way for corporations and wealthy individuals to anonymously donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. Officially, Super PACs are not allowed to "coordinate" with political candidates, but this is an irrelevant caveat. Even if they never talk to each other directly, Super PACs know the positions of their candidates and can therefore use their money as if it was part of the candidate's campaign fund.

Percentage of 2012 congressional races won by the biggest spender

The results of the 2012 election showed that political spending had a significant effect on the outcomes of elections, especially in the House of Representatives. Candidates who spent more money won 93-94% of House races, although these numbers were less severe in the Senate at 64-79% (depending on what measure of spending is used). Conservatives will often dismiss criticisms of political spending by comparing it to the annual revenue of a certain product or industry. They will say something like "It's not really that much money compared to industry X, so we shouldn't be concerned". But this comparison should be turned on its head and used to argue the exact opposite: "So much money is being spent on elections, it's comparable to the entire X industry!". In other words, the fact that we can even compare political spending to a real industry, which is (usually) based on the production of actual goods or services, shows how bad the situation is. Another way of dismissing such criticisms is to deny that political spending has any effect. If data like that presented in the above chart isn't enough to contradict this, there is another argument that makes the point clearly: Why would they spend all that money on elections if it didn't have an effect? That would be a bad investment, something any good capitalist would avoid. Sooner or later, we will have to accept that our democracy has been hijacked by the corrupting influence of money. Until then, we will have to make do with what we have: the best government money can buy.