Good-bye democracy. We will miss you.

Government by a few is called oligarchy, while government by the wealthy is called plutocracy. When it’s government by a few wealthy, it’s plutarchy. These days, any cursory examination of the U.S. political landscape shows a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy. Democracy, in their view, is so ‘old school.’


The average American still views the U.S. system of governance as a democracy. He or she generally votes in every two year election cycle, while often complaining about the lack of choice, or the perception that there often doesn’t seem to be a lot of difference in the choice. He or she likely retains a perception of the Democrats as the voice for the worker, the union or the average man, and of the Republicans as the voice of business, the economy, war and sometimes- perplexingly- even values.

That government should be responsive to public will is the foundation of a democratic society. Public opinion and elections are two means by which, in a democracy, the preference of the governed directly drives government policy.

Hence, the trend over the past couple of decades, where the President, Congress or Supreme Court have ignored significant majorities of public opinion to instead enact, legislate or adjudicate outcomes in favor of moneyed or corporate special interests, has left a large segment of the American public feeling both jaded and skeptical that the system still works.

Well, it does-- but for the one percent only.

Americans are Angry

That the system no longer works for the 99 percent is why there is so much anger and discontent in America. It is why we had Occupy Wall Street, until the movement was squashed by powerful interests who desire the status quo.

What drives it? There are many issues, of which the following are examples: Americans are angry that financial institutions may create bogus derivative schemes, with no government oversight, and then receive billions in tax-payer bailouts when they fail, with much of that bailout then going to executive compensation and bonuses to the very ones who dreamt up or authorized the mess. Those same angry Americans scream, “Where is our bailout?”

Americans are angry that globalization tends to turn U.S. corporations into bad ‘citizens’ at home who demand infrastructure and resources from communities, yet send local jobs to overseas sweat-shops and then sneer at paying responsible taxes. Angry Americans know that corporate tax-shelters and loopholes in tax law which favor corporations are inherently unfair.

Americans are angry that public education has been intentionally under-funded by private-education ideologues such that it will fail, and that the costs of higher education are soaring. Americans are angry that they pay much more but receive far less for their health care expenditure, versus citizens in other countries [See Why do we have profit in health care financing? ], and that their wages remain stagnant while inflation and the cost-of-living continue to rise. Americans are angry that they’re losing home equity, and that they are losing homes. Angry Americans scream, “What about the American dream?”

Americans are angry at seeing the public trust and common good given to special interests in the private sector.

However, what leaves Americans especially angry is to see their government unresponsive to majority needs while instead enacting policy favoring the very ones who don’t need any help. Frankly, the executive, legislative and judicial branches have failed miserably in their obligation to protect American citizens in terms of the common good and public trust.

America’s Broken Political System

Our skepticism of the U.S. political system has been building for decades. Research by Martin Gilens, using thousands of survey questions pertaining to proposed changes to policy between 1981 and 2002, showed the link between preference and policy is biased and favors the preferences of the very rich:

When Americans with different income levels differ in their policy preferences, actual policy outcomes strongly reflect the preferences of the most affluent, but bear virtually no resemblance to the preferences of poor or middle-income Americans… The vast discrepancy in government responsiveness to citizens with different incomes stands in stark contrast to the ideal of political equity that Americans hold dear. ¹⁾

Gilens states,

While perfect political equality is an unrealistic goal, representational biases of the magnitude shown by the study call into question the very democratic character of (American) society. ²⁾

Gilens’ study showed when policy preferences between the top 10 percent in income significantly differed from the poorest 10 percent, that government policy invariably followed the preference of the rich. It also held true when preferences between the rich and median-income Americans significantly differed. ³⁾

Should American citizens be concerned with having a government responsive to majority will? Certainly, although the incredibly rich and their paid pundits and minions will spend billions in attempting to persuade us that their best interests are our best interests- which is often demonstrably untrue.

The Koch brothers, the heirs to the Sam Walton fortune, John Paulson, Harold Simmons and other obscenely wealthy Americans would be quite happy to run the government for us- and, arguably, are. Therein lays the great problem with America’s political system: money. There are three aspects to the problem of money in politics:

• These days, one must be wealthy to run for office, so the President, senators and representatives are themselves wealthy. Thus, whose interests would you then expect such people to look after- theirs, or ours?
• Campaign donations drive election cycles, and the overwhelming majority of candidate financing comes from the contributions of a very few, very wealthy individuals. With ‘Citizens United,’ where there are now no constraints on campaign spending, and the problem has been enlarged.
• Corporate lobbying constitutes the third element, where corporations-- who are invariably owned and controlled by the very wealthy-- wine, dine and, if necessary, hammer politicians into toeing the corporate line.

The result of having a very few, very wealthy Americans running the government is like having a very few, very fit foxes running the hen house. It’s damned good for the foxes, but nothing short of hell for the chickens.

This all seems intuitively true, for if the very wealthy are not calling the shots, then why would Supreme Court decisions, congressional legislation and executive policy statements so strongly favor corporate and wealthy self-interests?

If you’re not convinced, try scheduling a meeting with your Congressman. Yes, I realize you may always meet with congressional staff persons, but try to get a face-to-face meeting. If you are not a big campaign contributor you might get lucky, but to ensure a face-to-face meeting probably requires something on the order of a $1,000 - $5,000 campaign contribution. Now, when it comes to owning the Congressman in terms of his influence on issues dear to your bottom-line, that likely costs a little more: say, $50,000 or $100k.

Obviously, you and I, and the vast majority of the nation’s 300 million citizens, cannot afford that. However, the Koch Brothers, the heirs to the Sam Walton fortune, John Paulson, Harold Simmons and others can and do:

Koch Industries, owned by brothers David and Charles Koch, is an energy concern heavily involved with fracking, oil, pipelines and refinement, and has given more than $25 million to groups whose mission is denying climate change. It is therefore no surprise Koch supports Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who insists he is more knowledgeable concerning global warming than the world’s top scientists; Koch Industries is Inhofe’s all-time leading donor. ⁴⁾ In the 2011 election cycle, Koch Industries spent more than $523,000, including $27,500 to Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), $21,000 to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and $10,000 to Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH). ⁵⁾ Note the Koch brothers are also known for their politically-driven financial support of conservative groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and, of late, Tea Party Republicans.

The six Walton heirs, who in 2007 possessed as much wealth as the bottom 30% of all Americans, ⁶⁾ spend significant sums of money advancing their interests through campaign financing and lobbying. In the 2004 through 2010 election cycles, Wal-Mart PACs averaged more than $2.9 million in campaign spending. ⁷⁾

Paulson, a hedge-fund manager and owner of Paulson & Company, has contributed more than $71,000 to Rep. Boehner’s 2011-2012 campaign, making him Boehner’s #2 contributor (as of February 18, 2012). ⁸⁾ Interestingly, Boehner also received more than $368,000 from PACs and people associated with the 23 corporations on the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC’s) ‘private enterprise board,’ which includes both Koch Industries and Wal-Mart. ⁹⁾ For Paulson, the Boehner contribution is chump change relative his 2012 contributions totaling $1 million dollars to ‘outside spending groups.’ ¹⁰⁾

Then there is Simmons, Contran Corporation’s billionaire owner, who in 2011 gave $5.6 million from personal fortune and another $2 million from Contran’s treasury to various super PACs promoting GOP presidential candidates. ¹¹⁾ That makes Simmons the top individual donor so far in the 2012 election cycle: well ahead of Texan Bob Perry (Perry Homes), at number two with $3.6 million, and Dreamwork’s Jeffery Katzenberg, third at $2.0 million. ¹²⁾

The combination of corporate lobbying and campaign contributions constitute a powerful one-two punch whose incessant pounding, favoring the wealthy few at the expense of society as a whole, has resulted in a pummeled democracy that may be down for the count. Journalist Bill Moyers has written wondering why Americans rarely perceive this moneyed tandem for the bribery it represents:

What happens to out venerable experiment in self-rule if it is money that rules our politics, and what can we do about it? Let’s not talk for the moment in terms of soft money, hard money, independent expenditures, coordinated expenditures, compliance expenditures, issue ads, express advocacy, in-kind contributions, party committees, multi-candidate committees… political action committees, and so on. I am convinced that this language exists, in the main, to make us glaze over in boredom and incomprehension in the hopes that we will stop poking into the politician’s real business.

In entering such a looking-glass world we lose the ability to call the most basic transaction by its right name. If a baseball player stepping up to home plate were to lean over and hand the umpire a wad of bills before the pitch, we would know what that was: a bribe. But when a real-estate developer buys his way into the White House with big bucks and gets a favorable government ruling that wouldn’t be available to you or me, or when the tobacco industry stuffs $13 million in the pockets of the merry looters in Congress and gets protection in return, we call that a campaign contribution. It is bribery, nonetheless, and it is steadily robbing our political system of legitimacy. ¹³⁾

Bribery is a strong word-- which is why the powerful must reframe what Moyers terms the ‘transaction.’

Environmental activist Bill McKibben tells the story of how political bribery affected the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would have taken oil extracted from Canadian tar sands through the U.S. to the Gulf coast:

We waged our struggle against building it out in the open, presenting scientific argument, holding demonstrations, and attending hearings. We sent 1,253 people to jail in the largest civil disobedience action in a generation. Meanwhile, more than half a million Americans offered public comments against the pipeline, the most on any energy project in the nation’s history.

And what do you know? We won a small victory in November, when President Obama agreed that, before he could give the project a thumbs-up or -down, it needed another year of careful review. A few weeks later, however, Congress decided it wanted to take up the question. In the process, the issue went from ‘in the open’ to behind closed doors in money-filled rooms. Within days, and after only a couple of hours of hearings that barely mentioned the key scientific questions or the dangers involved, the House of Representatives voted 234-194 to force a quicker review of the pipeline. Later, the House attached its demand to the ‘must-pass’ payroll tax cut. As important as the vote total in the House, however, was another number: within minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that the 234 Congressional representatives who voted aye had received $42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry; the 193 nays, $8 million. ¹⁴⁾

That, folks, is the essence of bribery.

McKibben wonders how Americans have become so complacent on issues that should make us “mad as hell” and leave us screaming, as Howard Beale in the movie ‘Network,’ that “We’re not going to take it anymore!”

Cynics-- call them realists, if you prefer-- are completely unsurprised by this. Which is precisely the problem. We’ve reached the point where we’re unfazed by things that should shake us to the core... Consider what really happened in that vote: the people’s representatives who took the bulk of that money from those energy companies promptly voted on behalf of those (corporate) interests.

They weren’t weighing science or the national interest; they weren’t balancing present benefits against future costs. Instead of doing the work of legislators, they were acting like employees. Forget the idea that they’re public servants; the truth is, in every way that matters, (legislators) work for Exxon and its kin. They should, by rights, wear logos on their lapels like NASCAR drivers.

If you find this too harsh, think about how obligated you feel when someone gives you something. Did you get a Christmas present last month from someone you hadn’t remembered to buy one for? Are you going to send them an extra-special one next year? And that’s for a pair of socks. Speaker of the House John Boehner, who insisted that the Keystone approval decision be speeded up, has received $1,111,080 from the fossil-fuel industry during his tenure. His Senate counterpart Mitch McConnell, who shepherded the bill through his chamber, has raked in $1,277,208 in the course of his time in Washington.

If someone had helped your career to the tune of a million dollars, wouldn’t you feel in their debt? I would. ¹⁵⁾

As would anyone else, which is exactly the problem. Congress no longer reports to the people but rather to the very few, very wealthy who run America’s corporations. If anything, McKibben isn’t being too harsh on our government leaders; he’s too soft.

If we can take the first step toward correctly reframing lobbying and campaign contributions as the bribery it is, then we may certainly take the next and frame our government representatives who accept those bribes for what they are: corporate whores. Think that’s too harsh? Consider Merriam-Webster’s third definition:

Whore. noun. (‘hor) definition: A venal or unscrupulous person, where venal means “capable of being bought or obtained for money or other valuable consideration.” ¹⁶⁾

Perhaps the most eloquent statement concerning the bribery in American politics came from a 90 year-old activist named Doris “Granny D” Haddock. On January 1, 1999, Haddock began a 3,200 mile walk to Washington D.C. to speak against money in politics, and in April, 2000 she participated in a demonstration at the Capitol at which she and 31 others were arrested. On May 24, 2000, Doris appeared before Judge Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to plead guilty for reading the Declaration of Independence in the Capitol Building. ^{17), 18)} In her statement, Haddock said,

"Your Honor... I did not raise my voice to do so (read the Declaration) and I blocked no hall... I was reading from the Declaration of Independence to make the point that we must declare our independence from the corrupting bonds of big money in our election campaigns. And so I was reading these very words when my hands were pulled behind me and bound: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.'

Your Honor, we would never seek to abolish our dear United States. But alter it? Yes. It is our constant intention that it should be a government of, by and for the people, not the special interests, so that people may use this government in service to each other's needs and to protect the condition of our earth.

Your Honor, it is now your turn to be a part of this arrest. If your concern is that we might have interfered with the visitor's right to a meaningful tour of their Capitol, I tell you that we helped them have a more meaningful one. If your concern is that we might have been blocking the halls of our government, let me assure you that we stood to one side of the Rotunda where we would not be in anyone's way. But I inform you that the halls are indeed blocked over there.

They are blocked by the shameless sale of public policy to campaign contributors, which bars the doors and the halls to the people's legitimate needs and the flow of proper representation. We Americans must put an end to it in any peaceful way that we can. Yes, we can speak when we vote, and we do. But we must also give our best effort to encourage the repair of a very broken system. We must do both. ^{19), 20)}

Doris Haddock understood perfectly that the bribery of campaign contributions and corporate lobbying are antithetical to a democracy.


While it is impossible to pinpoint exactly when U.S. democracy died, we do know the date when the coffin was nailed shut: January 21, 2010. On that day, the Supreme Court, in its “Citizens’ United versus Federal Election Commission” ruling, voted 5-4 vote to overturn restrictions in campaign financing opening the flood-gates to unlimited money in politics.

Citizens United

That the case is known as ‘Citizens United’ is Orwellian double-speak: rather than a group which advocates on behalf of a majority or the common good, Citizens United’s primary goals were, and are, unrestrained capitalism, emphasized through buzzwords like “limited government” and “free market economy,” the election of Republican candidates to all levels of government, and U.S. dominance on the world stage (American exceptionalism). To these ends their objective was and is influencing public opinion through creation of TV commercials, web advertisements and ‘documentaries’ that promote their ideals. This led to a lawsuit concerning restrictions in the airing one of their movies (“Hillary The Movie”) which ultimately wound up before the Supreme Court. ²¹⁾

Political advocacy on behalf of Citizens United often derives from the auspices of its “American Sovereignty Project,” whose goals include a complete withdrawal of the U.S. from the United Nations and the protection of U.S. corporate and political elements from the arms of the International Criminal Court (ICC). ²²⁾

Where does Citizens United get its money? They don’t disclose, but given they produce films with Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, Michele Bachmann, Fred Thompson and other “rising stars of the conservative movement,” ²³⁾ one hardly needs to guess. The Koch Brothers? The heirs of Wal-Mart’s founders? John Paulson? Harold Simmons? Certainly wealthy people of like-minded ideology are behind it.

‘One Percent United’ would have been a more appropriate name but that would have been bad for marketing, so the powers that be wrapped Citizens United in the flag, freedom, stars, eagles flying and a good dash of patriotism… even though its cause is basically the antithesis of all of these; the essence of Citizens United is concentration of power and policy in the hands of a few, whereas the essence of America is power and policy which benefits all people, not just the privileged.

The ‘Citizens United’ ruling did the following:

• Upheld Citizens United’s appeal of a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decision which upheld provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act concerning campaign communications. In essence, the Supreme Court, by upholding the Citizens United appeal, overturned legislation prohibiting unions and corporations from broadcasting ‘electioneering communications,’ defined as “communications mentioning a candidate which are broadcast over the airwaves, through satellite or cable within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.”
• Overruled the 1990 “Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce” decision, which held that corporate treasuries could not be used in supporting or opposing candidates in elections, and
• Partially overruled the 2003 “McConnell v. Federal Election Commission” ruling, in particular the aspects of the case which concerned electioneering communications. ²⁴⁾

Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy-- men who have repeatedly sided with the special interests of corporations and the wealthy versus society’s larger needs-- formed the majority. ²⁵⁾

The result of the ‘Citizens United’ ruling has been predictable. According to John Nichols and Robert McChesney,

We have seen the future of electoral politics flashing across the screens of local TV stations from Iowa to New Hampshire to South Carolina. Despite all the excitement about Facebook and Twitter, the critical election battles of 2012 and for some time to come will be fought in the commercial breaks on local network affiliates. This year, according to a fresh report to investors from Needham and Company’s industry analysts, television stations will reap as much as $5 billion—up from $2.8 billion in 2008—from a money-and-media election complex that plays a definitional role in our political discourse.

Citizens United’s easing of restrictions on corporate and individual spending, especially by organizations not under the control of candidates, has led to the proliferation of “Super PACs.” These shadowy groups do not have to abide by the $2,500 limit on donations to actual campaigns, and they can easily avoid rules for reporting sources of contributions… The 2012 campaign has already confirmed that Super PACs are key players, more powerful in many ways than the campaigns waged by candidates and party committees. But don’t expect commercial media outlets to shed much light on these secretive powers. Newsroom staffs have been cut, political reporting is down and local stations are too busy cashing in on what 'TV Technology' magazine describes as “the political windfall.” The Citizens United ruling and its Super PAC spawn have created a new revenue stream for media companies, and they are not about to turn the spigot off. “Voters are going to be inundated with more campaign advertising than ever,” one investor service wrote in 2011. “While this may fray the already frazzled nerves of the American people, it is great news for media companies.” ²⁶⁾

So there you have it: a United States where most voters determine how to mark their ballots based on an incessant and seemingly never-ending march of well-funded and slickly produced 30 and 60-second television advertisements. It wouldn’t matter if the majority of Americans were thoughtful enough to ignore the propaganda flooding across their TV screens to instead rely on homework regarding the candidates, but they aren’t.

What we may take to the bank is that these Super PACs will spend millions to determine how to most effectively influence how Americans vote.

Given the vast majority of all Super PACs represent the interests of the wealthy and their corporations, and that the vast majority of the money from all Super PACs will flow from these interests, they will effectively buy elections. After all, historically, the wealthy and their corporations have consistently been able to convince nearly 50 percent of Americans to vote against their self interests.

There may be no democracy when elections are decided based on 30 second sound bites largely created for the benefit of special interests representing the very wealthy and their corporations. Then again, in a system where only two major political parties exist and where both parties are beholden to the money flowing from special interests, there is no real choice anyway. It’s like voting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum; after the fact, 99 percent of Americans remain unrepresented.

Summary

The result of ‘Citizens United’ has been a strengthening of corporate “personhood” and the unleashing of unlimited spending in political campaigns. Winners were big money and the communications industry. Media monopolies won because even greater amounts are being spent on influencing public opinion through advertising, while the wealthy and other corporations won because they were freed to spend as much as they need in order to buy the outcome of an election campaign. In essence, ‘Citizens United’ has further empowered a privileged group of a few wealthy citizens to drive U.S. election outcomes.

Losers? Anyone in the ninety-nine percent, which is certainly me and likely you, too.

It is the concept of “one person, one vote” which has long been the mainstay of democracy, not-- as one of Occupy Wall Street slogan bemoaned-- “one dollar, one vote.”

In essence, the Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech, hence those with the most money get to speak loudest, longest and most often.

Proponents of ‘Citizens United’ claim it ‘opened’ the doors to free speech, which it has— for the one percent, anyway. For the 99 percent it meant no free speech whatsoever given only the very wealthy and their corporations truly have a voice.

Thus, is it any wonder the President, members of Congress and the Supreme Court are no more than puppets whose actions are dictated by the financial goals of their respective masters; that is, their wealthy backers and the corporations which those rich backers run?

America’s extreme and ever-widening inequality exacerbates the problem, for the shift in wealth from the poor and middle-income sectors to the privileged few is, as shown in the Gilens study, accompanied by a shift in power. Frankly, the survival of democracy has little chance when confronted with

• Extreme inequality,
• Governance by only those who are themselves wealthy,
• Exorbitant money in politics, both political campaigns and via lobbying, and
• The Supreme Court’s blessing in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.”

Taken as a whole, these factors provide the richest of the rich with a vehicle for de-facto rule as an American plutarcy.

Somehow, a government “of John Paulson and Harold Simmons, by the Koch Brothers and for the heirs of the Walton fortune,” or similarly, “of Exxon, by Monsanto and for Lockheed-Martin,” must surely have Lincoln churning in his grave. Good-bye, democracy. Some of us sorely miss you.


Footnotes

¹ “Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness,” Martin Gilens, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 5, Special Issue, 2005.
² Gilens, ibid.
³ Gilens, ibid.
⁴ “Who Owns Congress? A Campaign Cash Seating Chart,” Dave Gilson, Mother Jones, September/October 2010.
⁵ “Koch Industries: All Recipients Among Federal Candidates, 2012 Cycle,” Politicians and Elections, Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, 2012.
⁶ “Wal-Mart heirs net worth equals total of bottom 30 percent of Americans,” Elizabeth Flock, blogPOST, The Washington Post, December 9, 2011.
⁷ “Wal-Mart Stores,” Politicians and Elections, Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, 2012.
⁸ “John Boehner, Top Contributors” Politicians and Elections, Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, 2012.
⁹ “Corporations Represented on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Board Are Big Spenders in Washington,” Brad Hooker, News and Analysis, Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, September 12, 2011.
¹⁰ “2012 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups,” Politicians and Elections, Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, 2012.
¹¹ “Contran’s Donation to the U.S. Billionaires Super PAC,” Robert Maguire, News and Analysis, Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, February 9, 2012.
¹² “2012 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups,” Politicians and Elections, Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, 2012.
¹³ “Moyers On America, A Journalist and His Times” Bill Moyers, edited by June Leininger Pycior, The New Press, New York, N.Y., 2004.
¹⁴ “Time to Stop Being Cynical About Corporate Money in Politics and Start Being Angry,” Bill McKibben, TomDispatch, January 5, 2012.
¹⁵ McKibben, ibid.
¹⁶ Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2012.
¹⁷ “Granny D, Granny D’s Day in Court,” Dennis Burke, Law Notes, 1215.Org, May 25, 2000.
¹⁸ “Granny D, In Memory of a Political Activist and Senior Citizen,” GrannyD.com, 2012.
¹⁹ “Granny D, Granny D’s Day in Court,” Dennis Burke, Law Notes, 1215.Org, May 25, 2000.
²⁰ “Granny D, In Memory of a Political Activist and Senior Citizen,” GrannyD.com, 2012.
²¹ “Fulfilling Our Mission,” Citizens United, 2012.
²² “American Sovereignty Project, Mailing List,” Mailing List Finder, December 15, 2011.
²³ “What We Do,” Citizens United, 2012.
²⁴ “Citizens United v Federal Election Commission,” Wikipedia, 2012.
²⁵ Wikipedia, ibid.
²⁶ “After ‘Citizens United’: The Attack of the Super PACs,” John Nichols and Robert McChesney, The Nation, January 20, 2012.