Money stifles party agendas in campaigns
Originally published in the Daily Northwestern
Money stifles party agendas in campaigns
Naureen Shah column
February 04, 2004
Dennis Kucinich kills my cachet. My "Kucinich For President" pin is an instant point of ridicule. Underclassmen smirk, "You're still supporting him?"
Yes. I support Kucinich but moreover I support his progressive policies, such as repeal of the USA Patriot Act and investment in clean energy.
"But I want someone who can beat Bush." As an intern for former Vice President Al Gore's campaign in 2000, that was my standard response to Ralph Nader supporters. I grieved that idealistic Naderdites didn't seem to realize they were handing President Bush the White House.
But Nader didn't cost Gore the election. Political financing did.
Disenfranchisement occurs every day because money controls our political system, not votes. Corporations and lobbying groups wield power disproportionate to those who they represent. Less than one percent of Americans are millionaires, compared to 40 percent of current U.S. senators, according to Charles Lewis, founder of the Center for Public Integrity. That means even if we reform our voting system, our democracy is rigged in favor of a wealthy few.
Financial power is undisputed and the Democratic Party's compromised agenda reflects this. For example, Bush has rolled back national forest protections and pollution regulations. Few potential Democratic candidates, however, have proposed policies that would make up for these corporate giveaways in a meaningful, long-term way. They are beholden to corporations that would lose out from major environmental reform.
Even if a Democrat wins in 2004, his agenda's success would be constricted by corporate influence. Congress failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol -- which would have forced the United States, the leading contributor of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, to reduce emissions -- under President Clinton's watch. That was the result of corporate lobbying and the success of campaign financing that swelled the Republicans' numbers in Congress.
Furthermore, supporting the Democratic front-runners will do little. Democrats are severely disadvantaged by Bush's fund raising: a daily average of $617,476 compared to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's $66,812, reports the Center For Public Integrity. Don't think money matters? It does. In the 2000 Senate race, for instance, 85 percent of the top-spending candidates won.
As long as money plays such a large role in politics, the less-corporate-friendly party will lose out. It will fail either because the party lacks the finances necessary to win an election or, due to its shaky alliance with corporations, it lacks the ideological backbone necessary to mobilize grassroots support.
Instead of advocating a candidate, Kucinich or Kerry, we should advocate policy change that enables progressive candidates to succeed in elections and in office. Regulatory reform in areas such as media and the environment disrupts our disempowerment. When people are conscious and organized around issues, not candidates, progressivism will evolve from a reason for ridicule into a reality.
Naureen Shah is a Medill senior. She can be reached at naureen@northwestern.edu
Subscribe to this blog's feed