A projected total of $3.6 billion was spent during the 2014 midterm election, according the Center for Responsive Politics. According to the Supreme Court, unlimited spending on elections is protected speech under the First Amendment, leaving the floodgates open for high-wealth individuals and organizations to assert their interests. Some, like Thomas Hayes, a professor of Political Science at the University of Connecticut, argue such an arrangement can be toxic for democracy.
Professor Hayes has dedicated his academic career to the exploration of inequality by analyzing public opinion, legislative responsiveness, and economic disparity. Wealth inequality and representative inequality have given Professor Hayes cause to call for a reformation in how we as the American public should approach democracy and representation.
Professor Hayes boiled down the enigma of political equality with regards to recent Supreme Court decisions (Citizens United and McCutcheon), stating:
Zephyr Teachoutrecent bookunpopular
Much like our Founding Fathers, he may be right to fear the impact money can have on political inequality.
For the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, corruption was fueled by an inappropriate interdependence that usurped the political equality of those without the means to purchase patronage.
Historically, the use of public office or political influence for the exclusive benefit of private interests was regarded as corruption. One of the earliest examples was the Bank of the United States, the largest private interest organization of the early 1800s. It was considered corrupt after employing several congressmen to its board of directors.
James Madison addressed this conflict of interest fostered by the Bank of the United States in a letter to Thomas Jefferson. He wrote, “Of all the shameful circumstances of business, it is among the greatest to see the members of the Legislature who were most active in pushing this Job, openly grasping its emoluments.”
The Founders realized that for a democratic society the crux exists in creating a standard by which every person is equal. But what happens when corporations, like the Democratic and Republican parties, are legally afforded the same rights as people? Professor Hayes believes the consequences are stark:
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroadevidenceinteresting waysactual
Yet the legal precedent has already been set. Organizations like Represent.us and Money Out have been activating voters while searching for alternatives to the status quo. For Hayes the answer lies in the people:
“A very basic reform that would go a long way in ensuring better protections of First Amendment rights would be to put pressure on all levels of government (local, state, national) to prevent police from using arbitrary tactics in breaking up political protests, most especially with the use of force.”
Hayes continued:
protestsharsh tacticsThat
Our assured rights as determined by the Bill of Rights centers on the need for individual equality -- the power of the individual to shape the world around them. Each right established by our Founding Fathers was done so under the assumption that the democratic values of individual sovereignty and political equality were tantamount to human rights and dignity. Without political equality there are neither protections of individual rights nor democratic values.
Image: Pogonici / Shutterstock