Monday, December 10, 2012

More Elections More Problems


Government leaders are allowing, and incredibly, pushing for voter turnout to decline so their respective parties can triumph. Outside groups are destroying the individual right to vote as well as the ideal that all American voices are equal by giving preference to a privileged few while inviting politicians to be ignorant to the significant issues challenging the country. It is a revulsion to democratic principles that these components have become sizable factors in the election process.

Plutocracy and income inequality, two issues that have seemingly little to do with electing public officials, are the most dangerous aspects of the United States social and economic landscape today, and are being deliberately ignored because of their ability to have an effect on elections. In an excerpt from Chrystia Freeland's book, Plutocrats, she explains: "Americans were happy to celebrate their super-rich and, at least sometimes, worry about their poor, but putting those two conversations together was pretty much taboo." When it seems like all politicians can talk about is "the middle class", a talking point exemplified to an intense degree in the last presidential election, this is why. While lawmakers are happy to expound upon the benefits of "growing the economy from the middle class out" or "ensuring America has a strong middle class", they are afraid to address the issue of income inequality because the richest of Americans supply them with the tool they need to win elections: money.

Freeland goes on to say, "It would be best (for politicians) not to refer to income differences at all...if the president couldn't avoid singling out the country's top earners, he should call them 'affluent'. Naming them as rich sounded divisive." Yet, isn't rich a perfect term for the situation? There is a monstrous divide between the income of the rich and the poor of this country. Pretending to be ignorant of the problem by use of political language is a disservice to the majority of the public and a technique perpetuated by those for whom it benefits most - the rich.

In connection to elections, people earning low to middle level incomes cannot add much to a candidate's war chest (aside from the occasional ten dollars), and can't even flirt with the influence that  billionaires like Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers are able to exert. The result is the majority of American public opinion being drowned out by the almighty dollar, like the 300 million casino tycoon Adelson gave to Republicans in his own interest during last year's election cycle. Republicans would have been completely responsive to Adelson's tax needs, as he knows, while Obama's tax policy revolved around raising taxes on citizens like Adelson to help alleviate the national debt. Fairness is thrown out of the window in this situation. It's no sin for a voter to vote based on their personal interests, but it is irrefutably wrong for certain citizens to almost single handedly sponsor a politician, putting their own concerns at the forefront of political policy while simultaneously shunning the needs of the public.

Why should corporations, in an almost hierarchic and pyramidal manner, be prioritized in politics over average Americans? In 1816 Thomas Jefferson railed against this concept: "(We need to) crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Jefferson would be outraged by the amount of money spent in last year's congressional, senatorial, and presidential races, a total of 4.2 billion dollars.

The richest Americans are awarded a pedestal for their contributions to politicians, while average citizens remain grounded. In an article in New York Magazine by Matt Bai, he discusses Citizens United: "Now any outside group can use corporate money to make a direct case for who deserves your vote and why, and they can do so right up to Election Day." Consequentially, politicians now owe their allegiance to big money donors, who, because of Citizens United, have exaggerated influence on these politicians.

Income inequality will go on if money continues to flow from outside groups. A simple, though admittedly incomplete solution to this socioeconomic issue and its effect on elections is a cap on campaign spending. This must be a federal law - only five million dollars can be spent on state races of any kind and twenty million must be the limit on presidential races. The logistics of this cap may change but the overall purpose remains the same - the reduction of the gross accumulation of money in politics.

Americans would no longer have to watch copious amounts of campaign commercials, and instead could make their decision based on merit and a series of high stakes debates. In addition, the campaigning window will be shortened because there will no longer be a near unlimited supply of campaign funding. Politicians can now run on policy and will no longer have to be corporate mouthpieces. Super Pacs will be a strange phenomenon of the past, for money will no longer be considered free speech. If, as Citizens United says in its most primitive form, corporations are people, then these large businesses and their rich leaders are allowed to speak louder and with more frequency and freedom throughout the election process than ordinary Americans. No longer. No longer can business leaders donate to politicians, and ideally, the 4.2 billion spent in last year's election will be donated to charity.

Republican Mike Turzai, the Pennsylvania house majority leader, said that the new voter ID law in Pennsylvania, which was delayed in court, would "allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." Such a statement is disturbing and misguided on many levels, but its main red flag is the fact that partisanship is currently rampant in the election process, and politicians are working to get their own kind elected. This is not in the sense that they are endorsing other candidates, but instead they are lobbying for laws like voter identification that would disproportionately benefit Republican candidates.

States should not and cannot decide upon election rules in a partisan manner. There needs to be an impartial commission in all fifty states deciding upon voter laws, made up of members who have no stake in the election, and have the sole purpose of overseeing a fair democratic process. This now infamous photo ID law would have disenfranchised eleven to thirteen percent of the voting electorate, and almost all of these citizens would have been Democratic voters. Most of the legal arguments for the law were denied or delayed. 33 states proposed a voter ID law, 32 of the states were led in the effort by Republican lawmakers.

Voter obstructionism used to be done in the good old fashioned way - white men with guns "checking" a black person's voter information during the Jim Crow era. Now the democratic process is being impeded by the very officials we elect. An article by the Washington Post states: "Civil rights groups are warning that as many as ten million Hispanics may be deterred from casting ballots because of changes to voting laws." This is unacceptable. Of course, Barack Obama went on to win the election with a strong Hispanic turnout, to the dismay of Paul Ryan and other Republicans who were unable to block "urban voter turnout."

Republican Secretary of State of Ohio John Husted cut back early voting hours. This is a direct affront to Democratic voter turnout. The GOP's attempt to commandeer the election was shameful, and ultimately backfired, according to the record amounts of voters across the nation. Still, groups like "True the Vote," a Tea Party group that goes to urban areas to check voter registration lists and to look for loopholes in votes cast by democrats, work to make ballots invalid. The New York Times explains the faction: "a group founded by the Koch brothers that works to elect conservative Republicans." This is a lethal combination of outside groups and partisanship. Voter ID laws and early voting reductions passed through in Republican states would not be possible if each state was forced to answer to impartial election committees.

Our democracy is a special kind of screwed up if politicians can decide how to get politicians elected. It's time for our elected officials to do what they are supposed to - serve the public. Outside groups and partisan politics have no place in the election process, and frankly, they are negatively affecting the public and corrupting a right people fought and died for centuries ago.