Do All Citizens Have An Equal Voice?

Perhaps the most important principle of American democracy is that each citizen, regardless of the citizen’s education, income, religion, race, or gender, holds the same weight that any other citizen would. This is a very simple principle of American democracy that is often taken for granted. Both the Pearson textbook as well as Robert Dahl’s piece stress this point heavily, and view it as proof of the success of American democracy.

The trouble with this view, however, is that it overlooks a significant complication that has been the source of controversy for the United States in recent memory. Ever since the Supreme Court ruling of Citizen’s United vs. F.E.C, campaign finance has turned into a debacle, with corporations and wealthy Americans donating ever larger sums of money to the candidates that best represent their interests at the local and national level. One study has found that 91% of the time, the candidate with the most campaign donations win the election that they are competing in. Thus, we can see that the candidate who has the most money, and therefore the most exposure, is more likely to win than the candidate with the best policy proposals. This not only sets up an unequal election system, but it also poses a grave threat to policies that may be in the best interest for Americans. For example, in 2017, the fossil fuel industry spent over 125,000,000 in lobbying. If a US congressperson is receiving a substantial amount of funding from the fossil fuel industry, it is safe to assume that he or she will likely vote for policies that will favor the oil and gas companies. And with the imminence of climate change, policies that support the fossil fuel industry will be detrimental to most Americans, to say the least. Obviously, both the unfairness of elections and the ultimate influence that corporations have on our elected officials is a major cause for concern.

The frightening development of candidates with the wealthiest donors winning the lion’s share of elections across the country raises a number of key questions. If all citizens in the United States are equal, why should a wealthy few be able to decide who the representatives for the vast majority of American citizens are? Why should one candidate have an such an unreasonably unfair advantage over another candidate? If we are subject to such a one-sided system, is the system of government that we, as Americans, are currently living under really a democracy?

Ultimately, if the United States is to preserve its system, it must abolish the private funding of elections and replace it with a publicly funded system. This way, the people of the United States can ensure that its elections are fair and that what is best for the nation will come before what is best for corporations. Admittedly, this solution will not end government corruption or be the final reform that the US should make to its governmental system. It is, however, a compelling solution that would do the US a lot of good.

6 Responses to "Do All Citizens Have An Equal Voice?"

Brett Tivnan says:

January 27, 2018 at 5:22 pm

Hey Andrew,
I thought your post was very insightful and informative. As you pointed out in your post, it seems to be that in today’s America, everyone is equal, but some people are just more equal. Though we elect officials to serve our own best interests, in our current system they could never be elected to represent us without the contributions of larger private interest groups. To me, this begs the question: What good is electing a politician to suit our needs, if they are already serving the interests of someone else. As is the case with fossil fuel companies, which are often the largest and wealthiest corporations in the United States, often times the interests of these financial backers are not in the interests of the American people or even antithetical to them. To make matters worse, politicians such as Hillary Clinton even accepted funding from foreign special interest groups. How could a politician, regardless of their best intentions, ever wholly serve the interests of the American people when they owe such a debt to a foreign group.
While I agree that privately funding campaigns has the potential to greatly harm the United States, I don’t believe that abolishing it in favor of a public funding system is the best option. Though I may be misinterpreting what you mean by public funding, to me that means that the government is paying for the campaigns of its next leaders. If that is indeed what you mean, I see several problems with this. To begin with, I believe that taxpayers potentially having their money used to support the campaign of someone they have no intention of voting for would be counter-intuitive. In addition, if the government were to fund the campaigns, it would take a great deal of power away from the people, as the people are only seeing the information that the government would want us to see. Furthermore, the majority party would dominate in campaign funding, as they control majority power in decision-making. This could potentially lead to a single party holding total power over the government, stripping roughly half of the country of any form of voting power.
Holden Powers says:

January 27, 2018 at 7:16 pm

Andrew,

I find your blog post to be very insightful in regards to some of the campaigning and lobbying issues which exist within America. I understand your concern about how the wealthiest businesses and individuals tend to have their ways when it comes to election results and implemented policies. However, is this unfair?

I believe the answer is no. Every person in this country gets an equal vote and say within government. Businesses spend millions of dollars each year lobbying in D.C. in order to get their points heard. However, these companies are using democracy to their advantage.

In addition, businesses funding campaign elections with the candidate of their choosing is also something that any individual can do. If enough individuals believe in a particular candidate, then they can raise enough money as a group to outspend any business in this country. Our current system has worked for so many years, so why change it now?

Lastly and most importantly is that every person gets an equal vote. Businesses do not get to vote. Their employees and executives do. Individuals should be well-informed of all candidates before they make their vote. If relying on campaign advertising is the only way an individual knows about a particular candidate, then it is that individual’s fault. Therefore, we should be blaming the misinformed individuals and not the rich or corporations.

Thanks for your post!

Holden Powers
Marc Bosch Valentines says:

January 28, 2018 at 1:02 pm

Hey Andrew,

I found that your post offered a truly interesting and deep analysis of how American democracy works in the perspective of candidates funding, which is an essential variable to take into account when analyzing the effectivity of the system. While it is true, as you said, that private funding is bound to have a direct influence on the policies governors do and that this funding method should be reconsidered, it is also true that eliminating it would make it harder for politicians that are not so well-known (as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were) to make them known for the majority of voters and get to spread their policy proposals over the nation, which is something that in the context in which we are today, voters get influenced by the media in an unprecendented way.
It is also true that in many European countries, private funding is limited or even forbidden. This is the case of Spain. Political parties with representation in Spain receive substantial public funds based on their representation they have (number of seats) and the votes they get. This is a system that is intended to prevent corruption and private influences on government.
In addition to that, the Congress has a registry for special interest groups that intend to put transparency into how those groups influence policymaking.
All in all, I am not entirely convinced that eliminating private funding would have any effect on the policies governors implement afterward, this is why I would be inclined to adopt a more flexible policy which would consist on giving a partial public funding that would allow candidates to give up part of the private funding. Moreover, I would also put a cap on the amount received from each contributor and force that contributions come from different sources so that one contributor does not have great influence over others.
It is unclear whether this system would work, but in many other countries, it has been proven to work.
Klein Evans says:

January 28, 2018 at 3:37 pm

This was a great blog post. The start to your post was very strong and gave the audience a clear image of what your stance was. I would say that you are right in this argument and that we as citizens sometimes do not get our voices and opinions effectively shown. The example that you give concerning the advantage the wealthy hold during elections and making decisions is very appealing to this subject.

I agree with your approach to answering this question but I do believe you should have mentioned something about Donald Trump winning the last presidential election. The fact that he is an extremely wealthy businessman and won the election plays perfectly into your argument.

The fact that 91 percent of the time the candidate with the most donations ends up winning the election is mind-boggling. This does provide the sense that it is quite unfair and a solution is necessary. I think maybe some smaller steps that could lead to the end of private funding of elections is a better short term plan. Although I am not sure of these steps I do agree that the end goal should be to end the unfairness of these elections.

Great post Andrew!
Jennifer Munnings says:

January 28, 2018 at 4:52 pm

Andrew,

Your post is very insightful and challenges corporate America’s role in the government and the extent to which that hinders the U.S. government to cultivate a truly fair and equal populace. Privately funded elections disrupt the integrity of the United States democracy because it affects the equality of its citizens wherein the wealthy have an influence and policy and who is in power. Private organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are a prime example for the type of corporate corruption that you reference in your post. They create legislation that serves their own personal interest, congressman have incentives to push their legislation through and this often targets minority groups. The American democracy, defined by its free and fair elections that push for equality of all is corrupted by these private sector groups.
Populism in the United States government system is a factor that prevents the dismantling of privately funded elections. A large part of what decides who gets to be in power is the charismatic nature of the candidate. Rather than ideology, it is style that holds weight. To fund the campaign they need money the private sector can provide. So, how do we get around our populist ideals that are affecting our ability to have a truly equal society.
Everett Harper says:

January 28, 2018 at 9:41 pm

Andrew,

I really enjoyed your blog post and thought that it was very sharp. Although I do believe that companies and politicians have lots of power in funding and promoting candidates, I also believe that it comes down to informed and knowledgeable voters because, in the end, everybody’s vote counts the same. Both Democrats and Republicans do it, but it is also an effective and advantageous way for candidates to fund and market their campaigns. On the other hand, I do believe that some of these companies have an influence on the stance these candidates will make, which I think is wrong. There is obviously a large gray area, but I also believe that this is how American democracy has always been. Largely I believe that it boils down to informed voters because they will ultimately be the ones making the final decision.

Comments are closed.