Is Money Killing
Democracy in America?

Has anyone else noticed a peculiar inverse historical relationship: the more money is spent on elections the lower the voter turnout? For example, in 2002 about 80% of the eligible voters did not vote for the Bush agenda.

The connection between the increasing cost of elections and the decline in voter participation is obvious. We all know that elections are costing ever-greater sums of money and that voter turnout has been in a steady decline for decades. It defies common sense to say these are unrelated trends.

Whether or not this is a conscious strategy on the part of the right wing of American politics I do not know. However it is very effective as:

1. As long as BIG campaign money is principally derived from corporate funds, the need to NOT offend the hand that feeds them forces all parties to conform to the same set of demands imposed by the principal corporate donors. Over time, this means the parties are forced into the same mold and end up being reduced to being opposite sides of the same coin. Some call this triangulating the center.
2. The Right wing has been much more effective at raising money - it has a simpler agenda with a less diverse demographic.
3. Money spent on using negative advertising to carpet bomb the 'targets' numbs the voters and makes them passive.

The combined effect of the above factors is that the majority of voters experience:

Strike 1: numbed and turned off by traditional media that treats them as not very clever objects to be manipulated.

Strike 2: denied a voice in the political conversation, as they are offered no meaningful way to participate. Exclusion inevitably contributes to disengagement.

Strike 3: a sense of meaninglessness with no effective real choice between parties forced to "pander" to the agendas of their principal corporate funders.

No wonder the non-voters outnumber the voters for either party 3 to 1. As they say, three strikes and you are out. Voters understand that politicians have to dance with them that brought them and are not fooled for long by claims of independence.

It is perfectly clear that until opposition parties renounce corporate funds, they will be forced to fight the contradiction of their fealty to the corporate agenda on the one hand with their more liberal/progressive core values on the other. We have seen the inevitable results of that tug of war in the outcomes of the 2002 elections. This result has been coming since 1886, when Corporations declared that they had been given full first amendment rights.

Given that corporate funding of the political process generally increases non-participation in self governance, it can be said to have the perverse effect of minimizing democracy and promoting the inevitable growth of an elite plutocracy.

The question, then, is how to promote Greater Democracy in America? This is the defining issue for us as it is becoming clear that the Bush administration is using "Terrorism" just as McCarthy used "Communism" in the 1950s. The historical truth is that the right wing hates big government, except when they can use its police and investigative powers to enforce ideological conformity. For more on this see:

< http://www.progressive.org/webex/mcwatch.html >

The single most effective strategy for Greater Democracy would be to eliminate all participation by corporations in the American political process. As this was the case prior to 1886, this plan is ultimately very conservative, as it tends to restore American politics to the plan and structure envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Given this is a strong case of reverting to "Original Intent", one might suppose the Heritage Foundation and its ilk would find it very appealing.

As a political strategy, outlawing corporate participation in the political process, from lobbying, to funding campaigns, to all attempts to influence the political process in any way, would deprive the Right Wing firestorm of its oxygen. There is no surer way to restore the right wing perspective to its relative place in the American political spectrum. Without the explosive and distorting force of big money, the Right Wing will restructure to a size proportional to its actual base.

The fact of the matter is that Right Wing has been using the mantra of Tax Cuts to achieve one of their principal political goals: the de-funding of all opposition which would use government to pursue an alternative vision of what is best for America. Tax cuts are not about economics. They are 99% political strategy, as Bob Herbert makes perfectly clear in his essay at:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/11/opinion/11HERB.html >.

Tax cuts also cleverly play the insidious role of saying Greed is OK. Lastly Tax cuts to the rich help insure they will respond to a political strategy of instilling fear of loss of material wealth. Clearly the homogenous economic suburban voters responded to the GOP fear campaign. They turned out in droves to protect their status quo.

There are numerous other steps we could also take to stimulate a Greater Democracy in America. Here are but three examples:

1. Adopt Instant RunOff voting [IRV]
   < http://www.fairvote.org/irv/ >
2. Hold elections over a multi-day period with at least one day being a holiday
3. Adopt a broad range of new metrics for measuring the success of the American Experiment. The simplistic reliance on GDP as the primary metric leads to simplistic and distorting results. A reliance on only the GDP, as has been pointed out, ignores the essential role of the Balance Sheet in creating a healthy society.

For some more ideas, see:

<http://www.futurenet.org/23livingeconomy/twelvevangelder.htm>

The challenge is to take these ideas for stimulating Greater Democracy to the non-voting majority, the largest political party in America. The goal is to re-invigorate their participation in self-governance and to turn these "ideas" into practical reality as a first step.

It is time to put an end to the ability if just 20% of the voters determining the future of America.

For more on the problem with power of money to distort the political process, Mark Cooper, Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America, has written a paper titled "Once Money Talks, Nobody Else Can"

< http://www.consumerfed.org/oncemoneytalks.pdf >