As the shadowy super PACs of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich attempt to destroy each other without any input or participation by the actual candidates it has become painfully apparent just how a few ultra-rich people can put their stamp on a national election that, most would agree, is of utmost importance. Romney is a multi-millionaire and his campaign is generally funded by many different people, as well as himself. He has also been running for most of known history and still can’t make any friends.
Newt Gingrich is the more clarion example. With the $10 million infusion by Sheldon Adelson (and his wife), Gingrich has been able to make huge ad buys and stay relevant much longer than he may electorally have any reason to. To put more clearly, one person has been able to keep Newt Gingrich in the race because of his war chest rather than popular support. This is muddied a bit since Gingrich won the South Carolina primary (largely due to Adelson’s money) but the point remains that Gingrich’s is a campaign funded largely by a single person and Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina is at least largely due to that money.
Is it better for our democracy to have candidates supported by many small donations, such as Buddy Roemer, or a few huge donors (and super PACs), such as Romney and Gingrich? I obviously believe it is better to have many small donors and that the discussion should not be dominated by a few affluent individuals that are able to put their thumbs on the scale. It creates an environment in which the wealthy get a higher priority for their pet issues (Israel in Adelson’s case) and their opinions adopted.
What we are marching steadily down the road toward is a dollar-weighted democracy. The more dollars you have, the more influence in government you have. With such a large amount of our national wealth and income controlled by such a small group, it means that the majority of us are left to pick from a menu provided by the rich. Yes, all candidates must win a nation-wide vote, but with media, messaging, and ultimately who survives through the primary is largely due to whom the wealthy support. This goes for both Republicans and Democrats.
The more entrenched this dollar-weighted democracy becomes, the more likely it is that mass protests such as the Tea Party and Occupy will continue. Until candidates and politicians are once again accountable to and dependent on the general population for both funding and votes, none of us can truly feel represented in our government.
Comments