Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

The 2010 midterm elections taught American citizens, federal government officials and state lawmakers many lessons, some which were probably very difficult for certain political groups to swallow. Interestingly, the most important of these lessons may be that perhaps money really can buy happiness. This election proved that the foundation of our nation, democracy, is still alive and strong in this country. Due to factors such as our unrecovered economy, hardly any change in unemployment rate, the persistence of the war on terrorism, and the uncertainty of President Obama’s healthcare bill, America was exceedingly nervous about the present and future state of our great Nation. The question that remains to be determined is whether the major influx of campaign funding by unions and corporations had anything to do with opening America’s eyes to the problems that our country faces, and whether the increase in political advertisements and news coverage compelled Americans to cast their vote in hopes of showing their outrage. Maybe America would have done this anyway…but maybe not. According to MSNBC exit polls, about one-third of Americans cast their ballot merely in retaliation against the Obama administration. Many people tend to see the evil in increased nontransparent campaign funding (and it is easy to see why this is), which has now been deemed a protection of a corporation or union’s First Amendment rights due to the United States Supreme Court’s January 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. However, one can also argue that the increase in campaign advertisements helped America become more engrossed in politics and prompted otherwise non-voting citizens to voice their opinion. I admit that until this election, I tended to avoid political news channels and newspaper stories. This election, though, made me look forward to casting my ballot. I saw hundreds of political advertisements, many of which angered or disgusted me. However, those advertisements are part of what made me excited to vote. I felt incensed about the state of my country and of California, and I felt empowered knowing that I could help do something about it.

So, can money really buy America’s contentment with their government? According to Tom Hamburger and Kim Greiger of the Tribune Washington Bureau, the “accepted wisdom” is that money cannot determine the outcome of an election…until now. They report that, “when a political tide is turning — as it is against Democrats this year with voters angry over the troubled economy — heavy campaign spending can leverage or magnify the favored party's advantage. This year that means the GOP is mounting effective challenges in more races, even in districts that would otherwise be considered out of reach.” Tom Hamburger and Kim Grieger, “In 2012, Campaign Finance Trends Expected To Grow,” Los Angeles Times at 1 (November 1, 2010). This means that although money alone doesn’t buy an election, money combined with citizen unhappiness is the perfect recipe by which wealthy donors can influence the outcome of an election, especially in areas that typically favor one party over another. Moreover, contrary to what many believe, this new wave of funding is not solely directed at conservative groups, as evidenced by the 2010 midterm elections. Although most wealthy corporate donors tend to favor Republicans, the Los Angeles Times reports that “spending by business groups and wealthy individuals was often matched — sometimes exceeded — by labor unions, liberal advocacy groups and wealthy individuals.” Id. Additionally, at the outset of the 2010 midterm elections, democrats spent more than conservative groups, due to the support of labor unions and political advocacy groups. As the election campaigns continued, though, the amount of campaign spending by interest groups was nearly equal among Democrats and Republicans. Id; see also Lynn Parramore, “Money and the Midterms: Are the Parties Over? Interview with Thomas Ferguson,” Huffington Post (November 12, 2010).

Regardless of whether one believes that campaign funding by unions and corporations has helped or hindered our democratic process, one thing is for sure – the amount of both transparent and anonymous funding will only grow in the upcoming elections. This spending will become the “new normal” for political elections. In turn, the policies and goals of politicians will, even more than ever, significantly depend on which wealthy donors the politicians are getting their support from (even after they take office).

Where does this leave America? In an interview with Thomas Ferguson, Senior Fellow of the Roosevelt Institute and the leading authority on money in politics, he stated that the election did not show that Democrats and Republicans cannot agree. What the election showed was that “the American people will not accept the policies that leaders in both parties prefer.” In 2006 and 2008, voters showed no confidence in the Republicans, and in 2010 they have showed no confidence in Democrats. According to Mr. Ferguson, the problem is that big money dominates both major parties. Obama promised change and hope, and yet gave the banks taxpayer-funded bailout money that was used on elaborate corporate getaways and large bonuses. It is precisely this type of behavior that has outraged voters and enticed them to vote. Parramore, “Money and the Midterms,” Huffington Post (2010). It seems we have reached a conundrum. Money drives the outcome of our elections, it drives the actions of our politicians, and it may also drive voters to vote during tough times. Mr. Ferguson believes that it is precisely this political unrest and massive spending that will create a party breakdown in the next few years and possibly lead to the emergence of a third party. Therefore, while America has had the courage to attempt to make the change it desires through the democratic process, this change was driven by massive corporate and union spending. It seems inevitable that, partially due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, corporations will spend more, leading to more political discontentment among regular Americans. It is impossible to tell where this spending cycle will end, if ever, and what damage it may cause to our nation.