With the Supreme Court ruling on a 5-4
consensus which allows any donor from donating any amount of money to a
campaign, it seems that democracy has we know it is indeed dead. Democracy should be representative of all
people, not a select few. While I disagree with the ruling, I also know that it
is not the end of democracy because while money is very influential in
politics, it does not buy elections or a person’s right to vote. Should we all hold those that run for office
accountable? The obvious question is yes. How do we ensure they remain
accountable to us – their constituents? Yet it is another easy solution: We
vote!
If you remember this conversation
regarding donors pouring unlimited amounts of money into campaigns and a court
ruling in the Citizens United case
stating the corporations can contribute as they are people (which could become
a whole new discussion, but I won’t digress now), then you will understand why
this court ruling is important but not a “nail in the coffin” for Democracy. If
it were, then the words “President” and “Romney” would be an official title,
not just words that happen to share the same sentence.
The fact of the matter is that the
Republicans outspent Democrats 2:1 in political ads, thanks again Citizens United case (the lead ruling
that is wrong for 21st century America), yet they didn’t win. It doesn’t matter how much money a campaign
has that counts (thought it does help), it is how the candidate resonates with
voters and it is their TURNOUT
to vote for that candidate that wins an election. So while the Supreme Court of the United
State issued a ruling to strike down campaign finance laws and paved the way
for more money to flow into campaigns, it doesn’t affect the overall process of
democracy in America. Besides, if you want to contribute more to a campaign but
are financially constraint, then donate time and effort instead of money. A
campaign needs all levels of volunteerism, not just on the financial front.
I am torn with this decision. I understand
both sides of the argument. I do feel that just because someone has more money
they should get influence; but that is what people think will happen and I
don’t see that as a valid argument. There are ways to strengthen the law elsewhere
when one law is struck down. Not to mention, if a part of the “American Dream”
is to make money and spend it on whatever you want to, then those that have
“made it” have the right to throw their money at whichever campaign they choose
to associate themselves with while they are alive. The other thing to consider is that if
constituents don’t like the idea that their potential elected officials are
taking money from certain people and not others while running a campaign of
“for the people” then they need to be held accountable.
While this ruling paints a “doom and
gloom” version of what events MIGHT become, let us focus on what it means now,
how we can combat it (if we disagree with the ruling), and work to strengthen
our Democracy…which I believe is what the Supreme Court has done with striking
down this law relating to campaign contributions. The main thing to remember is
that money will always be in politics whether it is coming from a voter of “middle class America” or “high class America”
because all classes of America vote when it comes to elections.
