John Buttrick of Concord can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com.
I’ve been a consistent voter for 63 years, as a resident in various states and while in the military. Now I’ve returned to my New Hampshire home and again registered to vote.
However, over the years I’ve fallen into a quandary. This election cycle I’m receiving dozens of daily emails. They suggest that my candidate choices will win only if I send financial donations. Does donating supercharge my ballot vote? Perhaps not! Much larger financial donations from the Super PACs and the rich and powerful may render my ballot vote superfluous. But the 24th Amendment to the Constitution suggests that the “scope and intent” of my ballot vote should not be impeded by the power of taxes (money).
If it does, our democracy is at risk. Thus, my quandary! I can mimic the rich and powerful with a vote by donation or I can hold fast to a commitment only to casting a ballot at the polls. Either way, money and/or a ballot vote, democracy loses. The power of money wins the day.
Evidence of how injecting money weakens democracy is illustrated by Dan Kaufman, recently reporting in the New Yorker, “It is estimated that the two parties’ combined spending for legislative and congressional races in 2022 in Wisconsin could exceed seven hundred million dollars… Politico reports that chances of (a candidate) winning will come down to whether they have enough (financial) resources to take on the (other Party).”
In contrast, in 1982 Wisconsin U.S. Senator William Proxmire spent only $145 on his successful reelection. It’s become expensive to fund an illusion of a free democracy.
The press and the pundits are measuring the potential success of candidates with the amounts of money they raise. Candidates and political parties insist that it takes huge donations of money to win an election. A sample of emails and other communications to constituents include, “This race is … one of the most expensive races of the 2022 election — and the cost will only get higher as we get closer to Election Day.” “Would you make a small sacrifice to help us defeat (the other party) loyalists?” “We’ve raised over $14,000,000 to elect diverse (candidates) – all from grassroots donors like you.” We “absolutely must elect (party members) who care about our issues. But we have only until midnight to get it done (with your donation).” “If 6,535 (party members) rush a gift before our 24-hour deadline, we’ll have the resources to hold the House and hold the Senate.”
It’s not difficult to construe from these examples that the power of money dominates election campaigns. Wealth leverages elections, in spite of the dozens of regulations and laws that seek to prevent campaign financing interfering with citizens’ votes.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had an outsized influence in elections, that sway has dramatically expanded since the Citizens United decision, with negative repercussions for American democracy and the fight against political corruption.”
There are enormous pressures to keep campaign money flowing. Politicians who receive large contributions for their campaigns and those who give the money support a culture that uses accumulation of money as a measure of personal success. The media compete for the windfall profits from the sale of campaign advertisements. The lobbyists, who are backed by wealth, gain the most influence on Capitol Hill. Wealth is viewed as an indicator of strength, superiority, influence, and leadership.
An example comes from an Evan Osnos’ article in The New Yorker, about “outrageously luxurious superyachts.” A yacht builder was asked why the superrich, who want privacy, aspire to own the world’s most conspicuous yacht? He answered, “People can’t see you (on your yacht), but you’re in the most impressive thing. We all need to feel we’re important one way or another.”
The length of the yacht measures the importance of the owner. This logic follows many politicians. The larger the campaign war chest, the more important the candidate. Also, people with less wealth gain power and importance as a guest on a yacht or taking a selfie with an influential legislator.
To maintain even a semblance of a democracy, it’s doubly important to cast our ballots in the 2022 elections. It will express a determination to refuse to be complicit with an aspiring opulent autocracy. The first step is exposing the many subtle and not so subtle ways money is used to overpower the ballot box. It can motivate advocacy for change. Some of the ways to take back our vote may include eliminating all donations to election campaigns, including a candidate’s own money and donations from out-of-state. It may include encouraging the media to offer public service announcements, an equal number for each candidate. It may include several media debates among all candidates who qualify with a designated number of nominating signatures. It may involve amending the “Presidential Election Campaign” fund to include a given amount to each senate and house candidate. Finally, from this fund, and other tax money if necessary, provide each candidate an equal amount of money for campaign expenses.
These ideas are only first thoughts. Hopefully they may spark other possibilities to give each candidate an equal opportunity at the polls. Taking money out of campaigns will be a slow process. However, perhaps in 2024 or 2028 it may be accomplished.
When that day comes, the millions of dollars freed from political campaigns may provide an answer to, “Citizen, can you spare a dime?” There may be a “spare dime” for health care for all, for environmental well-being, a “spare dime” for affordable housing, for equal justice for all people, and a “spare dime” for many other needs. Citizens may answer, “We have a dime and much more to spare for the well-being of democracy, our neighbor, and our country.”