Tag: democracy

The Gradual Erosion of Democracy After Citizens United

Citizens United dramatically increased the role of money– especially unlimited, often opaque money, in American politics. It has intensified several conditions that political scientists associate with democratic backsliding.

Citizens United

In Citizens United v. FEC (2010) the Supreme Court held that corporations, unions, and associations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited money on independent political advocacy. As a result super PACs have become dominant. They are allowed to raise unlimited funds from wealthy individuals, corporations, and nonprofits.  Called dark money, nonprofits (501(c)(4)s) can spend heavily on elections without disclosing donors.  Outside spending in federal elections increased from roughly $143 million in 2008 to over $1.4 billion in 2020.  As a result of Citizens United, a tiny fraction of donors now account for a large share of political spending.  Candidates increasingly rely on outside money rather than party organizations.  These are well‑documented changes in the structure of American political power.

Corporations, while legal entities, are not citizens.  They are not human beings.  Giving them citizen attributes increases the power of the individuals who own them. 

Political scientists see Citizens United as one factor that amplifies elite influence over policy and messaging.  It weakens accountability because donors can remain hidden.  At the same time, it increases polarization, as outside groups often reward extreme rhetoric, which erodes trust, because voters perceive the system as unduly influenced by money.  These trends can make democratic institutions more vulnerable to authoritarian behavior.

Democratic Erosion

Today, the U.S. shows warning signs that scholars of democratic erosion track.  There are increasing claims that political opponents are “enemies of the nation.”  There have been Trump led attempts to delegitimize elections.  Growing executive power is evident under President Trump.  As a result of vitriolic speech, there is an increase in political violence and threats, and extreme polarization of the population.  Media companies reinforce disinformation and increase the influence of wealthy donors and corporations.

However, the U.S. also retains strong features that offset the erosion.  There are still competitive elections, although there are concerns about federal interference in the November 2026 midterm elections.  There are independent courts, although some critics argue that the Supreme Court has been compromised.  Free press still exists despite efforts by the federal government to control the message.  There are still many civil society organizations that represent various social economic and environmental causes openly stating their beliefs.  State rights still exist.  However, there are efforts, such as the SAVE Act, that attempt to encroach on these rights.  And while there are Constitutional checks and balances, the current administration has worked to redefine them.

Most scholars describe the U.S. as experiencing democratic backsliding. Yet, the rhetoric we are hearing, such as calling political opponents “enemies,” is historically associated with authoritarian movements.  This certainly deserves serious attention.  When a political leader labels a domestic political party as an “enemy,” it signals a dehumanization of opponents and delegitimization of democratic competition.  This labeling can lead to justification for extraordinary measures, such as declaring a national emergency during an election.  It has already led to permission for supporters to treat politics as warfare.  Donald Trump backed motivated supporters on their January 6, 2020, march on the Capitol.  This rhetoric is not new in world history, and it is often a precursor to authoritarian consolidation. It is a red flag in democratic theory.

The issue is the interaction between unlimited money, polarization, disinformation, institutional weakness, leader-centric politics, and rhetoric that frames opponents as existential threats.  That combination is historically dangerous.

Daniel Webster

“It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the danger of good intentions.  There are men, in all ages…who mean to govern well; but they mean to govern.”  These are words that the People need to remember.  Today’s political landscape is dominated by big money, whether it is through lobbying efforts or through the various organizations that are now allowed, as a result of by Citizens United, for all practical purposes, to buy elections.  The People have been sold out.  Who sold us out?  We did!!  When people/citizens fail to cast ballots and get involved in political debate, they forfeit their freedoms to those who are willing to be involved.  Today, in the United States, those most involved in politics are the moneyed interests.  More than likely, these organizations and individuals do not have the People’s best interests in mind!

Did the Supreme Court get it right?  I don’t think so.  They have placed inordinate value on the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech clause.  However, in the Constitution, Freedom of Speech is only granted to the People.  This does not include non-human legal entities!  These groups, if allowed to continue to pour millions of dollars into political debates, will have an impact beyond anything dreamed of by the Founding Fathers.  In addition, the reality is that they not only have a financial impact, but allow people associated with the organization to in essence have more than 1 vote!!  Wealthy business owners not only cast their “human” vote but also have tremendous influence through their companies’ ability to propagandize their interests.

Conclusion

It is We the People who need to take control of our creation.  End Citizens United!!  Control funding for political purposes!!  American citizens need to support efforts to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United.  Groups such as Move to Amend are working to gain support in both the House and the Senate.  Make your voice heard by supporting a group organized to stop the influence of big money in politics.  Support Move to Amend, Democracy Unlimited, We the People, or other grassroots organizations that are working to remove big money from politics.  Vote for representatives who advocate for the removal of big money from politics!

Cents or Common Sense?

I often ask, “How much is enough?”  How much wealth is enough for a person to live a good life?  Is it $100,000, $1,000,000, billions, and now in some cases trillions?  Most of our founding fathers were educated, skilled, and diverse in their financial status.  They chose to create a constitution that guaranteed equality of opportunity and equal treatment of individuals.  While slaves were not considered equals and women were not given any rights, these men were people of their time and represented a vision of the future where the people would govern themselves with equal voices.  Is the pursuit of wealth what our founding fathers visualized when they established this great republic?  NO, their vision was about equal opportunity, not the accumulation of vast wealth and the power that comes from having it.

The America That was Planned. 

The Constitution, written by our founding fathers as our “blueprint,” stressed individual freedom through a representative democracy.  The “people” were to be the government.  The assumption was that an educated electorate would choose the best candidates to represent their interests.  The founding fathers tried to draft a document that would allow the people to make decisions.  However, several of these same authors also had a skeptical view of the future.  They warned about greed and consolidation of power.  Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Franklin were very vocal about their concerns.  Franklin is quoted as saying, “We have a democratic republic, can we keep it?”  Some people with wealth and power have been trying to control government decision making for decades.  And in 1958, Dwight Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”

What is America About in the 21st Century? 

In the 21st Century, success varies depending on the individual.  Those with gifts for business control the decisions that Congress makes through lobbyists and PACTS.  The control of government by vested business is not new.  By 1900, “robber barons” influenced many government decisions.  This influence was eventually limited during two presidencies—Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.  However, over the decades following WWII, business interests have once again been able to exert excessive influence over our leaders. 

Do we value wealth over our freedom of expression, and the ability to live life as we choose as long as we do no harm to others?  The relationship between money, happiness, and freedom is complex.  Can money buy happiness? According to one study, the answer is “yes” for 59% of Americans (72% of Millennials and 67% of Gen Z).  Most associate a “Return on Happiness” with on-time bill payment (67%), being debt-free (65%), affording everyday luxuries without worry (54%), and owning a home (45%). Half of people say contentment is found in spending on experiences with those they cherish (53%) and in optimism for what’s next, including retiring on their own terms (37%).

However, many also recognize that financial stress can hinder overall happiness, with 73% of Americans reporting that they experience financial stress. In the current environment, people estimate that they will have to delay their expected retirement by three years (to age 63), on average. Economic pressures like inflation (81%), rising costs (81%), interest rates (66%), and student loans (32%) are dampening a sense of prosperity. Half of the people say they carry debt (54% of Gen Z, and 72% of Gen X), and 36% state that they could not handle an unforeseen expense over $500 without real worry (Empower Press, November 20,2023).

Apathy

However, as Noam Chomsky said, “As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please.”  When the average American could have a nice home, car, truck, boat, and the ability to take vacations, then no one paid attention to the what the government was doing unless it impacted them directly.

In America, political apathy is a problem.  In the United States, turnout for presidential elections places the country in 31st place out of 49 nations where data is available.  During the 1800s, on average, 70% of Americans voted in presidential elections.  Since 1900 the average has been consistently around 62-64%.  The highest turnout was in the Hayes/Tilden race of 1876 with an 83% turnout.  By the 21st Century, apathy was common.

Donald Trump entered the Republican primary in June 2015.  His campaign slogan was “Make America Great Again (MAGA)!” He won! Still, while Trump accurately claimed the election saw the largest number of voters to ever vote, voter turnout, at approximately 60%, was not great.  The MAGA movement believes the U.S. was once great but has declined due to foreign influence. It supports “America first” policies, economic protectionism, reduced immigration, and what it regards as traditional American values, some of which involve discriminatory policies. In 2016, the MAGA movement made it clear that many Americans were concerned about the “extreme liberal” direction of the nation and the impact that it might have on their lives.  The leaders of the movement stressed the “good old days” when Americans were patriots with Christian values.  Opportunity existed for all if they would just work for it.  They believed that government had become a tool for the left thinking socialists/communists.  These left leaning leaders gave handouts to, and created opportunities for those who were not prepared or deserving. 

Under President Donald Trump, America has now arrived at a critical point in determining what this nation represents.  Are we going to step up and be about personal freedom or are we going to allow monied interests to control our government and our lives? Americans need to decide what is the ideal balance of wealth and power versus happiness and freedom for all.