Money Is Everything

Published as a guest editorial in the Asheville Citizen-Times on October 12, 2000 under the title "Money isn't just a corrupting influence in politics - it's the only influence".

Money has always been a corrupting influence in politics. Money from individual donors, from corporations, from political action committees. It washes over every candidate and every office. And the higher the office, the bigger the flow.

Over the years, the trend has only gotten worse. Every election, new records are set for the number of dollars raised.

I believe it has finally gotten so bad that we've hit rock bottom. Money is no longer just a corrupting influence; it is the only influence. From now on, the candidate with the most cash will always win. In other words, you can predict with certainty who will get elected based only on the size of his campaign fund.

There is one exception to the rule: the money must be from outside sources. If it's your own money, it doesn't count. Why should it matter? Because elections have become like auctions: the prize goes to the highest bidder. The corporations and the PACs who bid highest can claim their prize; they now "own" the candidate.

But rich people are not for sale; they can't be bought. In the eyes of the big money donors, they are unreliable; spurious; uncontrollable. They can't be counted on to act the way the donors want. Their votes, rulings, policies and priorities are their own.

For example, consider the 2000 presidential race. The billionaire exception automatically rules out people like Ross Perot, Donald Trump, and Steve Forbes. These high rollers may shake things up, but they won't affect the final outcome.

The only other candidates with serious money are Al Gore and George W. Bush. Gore has raised $126 million so far—most of it from federal campaign funds. Bush handily trumps that with $177 million. Bush's federal share was much less than half; his largesse came mostly from industry.

But what about the voters? Don't they ultimately determine who wins? In theory, yes. In the real world, voter participation has been steadily declining for decades, making it ever easier to influence the vote. The mass media, being in effect a wholly-owned subsidiary of the corporate world, has become extremely skilled at this. They know how to spin the voters to produce the desired outcome. The media's preoccupation with the bottom line, money and ratings turns the news into mere soundbites, emphasizing daily activity while ignoring issues, insight and substance. The result is confusion at best, and disinterest at worst.

And their task is greatly simplified by the Commission on Presidential Debates. This bipartisan corporation—funded by huge corporate sponsors—effectively locks out all third-party candidates by requiring them to meet an arbitrarily high 15% threshold of support in national polls. Only then are they allowed to participate in the televised debates—the primary (and in many cases only) source of information for most voters. This threshold effectively guarantees that voters will see only Democrats and Republicans.

In contrast, candidates need only 5% to be entitled to federal campaign funding—a level that Ralph Nader achieved, despite minimal media coverage. But since he is excluded from the debates, that federal funding is virtually worthless. Media exposure is essential in modern presidential politics; without it you may as well concede up front. That means we can also forget about other third-party candidates like Pat Buchanan and John Hagelin.

So in the end, it comes down to a dog-and-pony show featuring two almost indistinguishable corporate lackeys, hyped as a momentous event in our national life. And the game is rigged almost from the start to favor the more servile of the two. As Tom Cruise said so famously in the movie "Jerry Maguire", "Show me the money!"

Case closed. Bush wins.

Figures are from the Center for Responsive Politics, 1101 14th St., NW, Suite 103, Washington, DC 20005-5635, telephone (202) 857-0044, http://www.opensecrets.org/