Throughout the history of the United States there have been various movements to reform government. Many of these efforts have focused on the electoral process, seeking ways to make it more inclusive and fair. Campaigns to limit the impact of money on politics have had a spotty record of success, closing off one avenue or another but not finding a way to completely eliminate the corrosive effects of large campaign donations. Those who would use their financial resources to steer the course of the government have consistently found creative workarounds that have enabled them to continue to have inordinate access to power.
The essential problem has been, I think, that reformers have overlooked the main reason why bribery and corruption have been so endemic. It is not really a matter of tweaking the system to make it work – it is more a case of looking at the system and seeing why it doesn’t work in the first place. Many are loathe to do this because they probably wouldn’t like what they see, and they might have to admit that the system itself is highly flawed, perhaps beyond redemption.
Governance, under the best conditions, is a difficult process. It requires a balanced approach whereby everyone who participates must at least accept the terms that are laid out as to how decisions are made and implemented. From the inception of the United States it was determined by those who appointed themselves the arbiters of how this would be done that empowering a body of legislators and a main figure who would preside over the process was a common sense approach to the challenge they faced. It was a structure with which they were familiar. It resembled the kind of system they had been living under, with what they assumed were certain improvements. Instead of a king they decided that an elected president should execute the decisions made by a legislative body and that legislative body would be, much as parliament was in England, made up of elected representatives who answered to the people in their districts, making laws and allocating resources through a process of negotiation and deliberation.
It seemed like a sensible, orderly method of governing the newly formed union of former colonies. The representatives in many respects were envisioned as couriers, carrying out the will of those who had elected them, faithfully reflecting the views and opinions on policy of the people in their districts. Of course this system also acted as a way of avoiding the more contentious aspects of democracy, limiting the more radical inclinations of the populace and securing the status quo to the greatest extent possible since it gave elected representatives the option of using their own discretion.
The gradual growth of the nation made the federal legislative process more critical as to how the nation was governed. As states lost more and more of their autonomy, power became more and more centered in Washington. With this concentration of clout came a political culture that grew more insulated from the impact of the views and wishes of those in the districts back home. The populations of the districts themselves increased in size, from around 40,000 in the early 19th century to around 700,000 at present. This meant that any one individual living within a congressional district has had, over time, a decreased degree of influence on the selection of that district’s member of congress. As for the senate, that institution has always been even less democratic and more impervious to public opinion.
In the meantime changes were taking place in society due to technological developments. The ascendancy of the power of mass media made it possible for candidates to reach more people in the districts in which they were running for office. They could buy air time on radio and television, but only, of course, if they had the financial resources to do so. This gave those with money an additional edge in the sponsorship of candidates. While party politics and graft have been a part of the system practically from the beginning, the influence of concentrated wealth has reached unprecedented heights. It’s been the growth of this form of political control that ultimately became the impetus of campaign finance reform.
One of the aspects of the system that has been overlooked, however, is that the process of electing representatives inevitably invites the kind of corruption that is being targeted by the reformers. The main problem is the concentration of power itself. Putting the ability to tax and allocate money into the hands of an individual who then seeks financial help to run for office is just asking for trouble. It is clear that those who are either seeking contracts and grants or who wish to be exempt from taxation will use their financial support to buy off those who can help them achieve this – members of congress.
As this appears to be the case, what can be done? Besides hoping that those who benefit from the current system will endeavor to change it – which is highly unlikely – we have to address the problem of concentrated power itself. We really need to change the system, to make it more democratic. Part of the problem is the size of the districts. But beyond that the very idea of representation may be at fault.
For one thing, when a voter selects a representative, the voter may be lulled into a false sense of actually being represented. We see repeated calls encouraging people to get out and vote, as if voting itself is the only aspect of their civic duty. Once elected, a representative has various tools to keep him or her in office – constituent service, gerrymandering and, most often, a cash advantage, particularly if he or she has voted on policies in accordance with the will of those who have financial clout. Few if any citizens spend a great deal of time actually scrutinizing the records of their representatives, and if they do, they have a limited ability to act upon what they learn. The apathy that is encouraged by the very notion of handing over the decision-making process to one anointed individual representing your district is widespread and difficult to overcome.
What’s more, there is the problem of “bundling” – and I’m not referring to the process of collecting money (though that’s a problem in itself). When you vote for a candidate, you vote for the entire platform on which that candidate is running. If you are a conservative who has strong feelings against abortion and a candidate supports that view, you would be inclined to vote for him or her. Yet if that same candidate also supports issues you are opposed to or that run against your best interest – if you are in favor an increase in the minimum wage but your conservative candidate opposes that increase – you have to make a hard choice.
Likewise, if you are liberal and a strong environmental advocate but are opposed to the high levels of military spending that are prevalent, and your candidate who has a favorable environmental record also wants to actually increase the military budget, you are faced with a difficult decision as well. Add to that the “lesser of two evils” effect and the fact that in almost all races you are faced with choosing between only two candidates, and it’s easy to see how many voters are put in a bind – and why many might decide not to vote at all.
This bundling of issues, which forces us to vote for a candidate with whom we may disagree on so many policies, points out one of the most grievous flaws of the representative system. Instead of simply letting us, as citizens, vote on these issues, we must defer to an individual who may be marginally acceptable in one or two areas but who often works against what we see as our basic interests. Add this to the mix of concentrated power and general apathy and you have a system that doesn’t and arguably can never fairly represent us.
There could be solutions, but they would involve moving away from the system as it exists and rebuilding it to make it more inclusive and more democratic. The first step would be to break the nation into smaller regions, all of which could maintain mutually supportive relations with each other through a kind of federation. Next, each region should rely more on initiatives and referendum to make the most important decisions, and those decisions should be carried out with a local focus using local resources as much as possible. A smaller scale system that is more transparent and engaging would increase the impact of each individual on the way society functions. The transition to this new approach might be slow and even take place parallel to the current system, but it would bring us closer to the goal of self-determination.
It’s clear, though, that the current system is broken – I would say beyond repair. We are better served recognizing this and beginning the process of creating something that will serve all the people. It can be done, with imagination and determination.