To what extent has democracy in the US been subverted by money?

[Berkut]

I imagine there is a standard response to this issue that goes something like "Oh please, people have been bitching about corruption in the US pretty much since the moment we had a nation. This is just more of the same, and nothing has really changed".


I don't think this is accurate though - something HAS changed. The USSC in several decisions has fundamentally altered in a real and practical sense how democracy works in the US, and done so in a manner that I expect really means that democracy simply does not work in the US anymore.


We still have elections, we still have bitter partisan fighting over everything (if anything this is worse than ever), but I am becoming more and more convinced that even the bitter partisanship is mostly all smoke and flash, without any real effect when it comes to the things that have been subverted by money.


It feels like we mostly fight over the outlying issues, the ones that are left after the fundamental ones have been removed from the table. Should we have more or less troops in Iraq? Afghanistan? More of less money for public health care?


But why isn't there any real debate about finance reform? Why don't any national politicians even try to address income and wealth inequality? It is obvious that actual campaign finance reform is a complete dead issues - the USSC has basically said that not only is it "working as intended", even suggesting that it could be reformed is unconstitutional.


So we are left with what feels a lot like a fake choice. You can pick between various political options, every single one of which is bought and owned by the ultra-wealthy corporations and entities that are absolutely required to fund modern political campaigns. You cannot be elected, nor can you be re-elected, unless you have access to incredible amounts of money, and now that corporations are people, and money is speech, the outcome is pretty much obvious, inevitable even. You cannot even really blame the politicians - they are playing by the rules of the game as they exist, and those rules say that re-election and securing the funds necessary for that trump any and all other concerns.


I cannot influence my representatives in any fashion in this regard. I can choose to vote among a set of choices all of which are utterly beholden to those who fund them. So of course there is no choice that can or will go against their interests when the set of people capable of funding them are all those same corporations. It is beyond naive to think that this current system can work any other way.


And this is NOT same old same old. This is new. We have argued for a long time about private versus public funding of elections, but now it isn't private funding of elections, rather it is corporate funding of elections. How can that possibly be workable in anything that we would call a representative democracy that represents anything other than corporations?


Democrat/Republican? It seems to be to be a false choice. It doesn't matter which you choose - either way you are getting political figures beholden to those who put them there.

[Sheilbh]

Okay but I think there's a counter trend of roughly Dean-Obama (08)-Paul-Tea Partiers which is more interesting and possibly more like the future.

I'd add that from a British perspective, despite lower turn-out, the US seems to have healthier mass parties.

[derspiess]

Oh please, people have been bitching about corruption in the US pretty much since the moment we had a nation. This is just more of the same, and nothing has really changed.

[The Minsky Moment]

Okay but I think there's a counter trend of roughly Dean-Obama (08)-Paul-Tea Partiers which is more interesting and possibly more like the future.

Disagree.
Dean was a flash in the pan and his next act was to figure out how to shovel as much corporate money into the Democratic trough as possible. 
Obama is far more problem than solution.  He is Exhibit 1 of the permanent fund-raising presidency.  I realize you hedged with the "(08)" designation - but that just underscores the stark difference between promise and reality.
Rand Paul?? He is one of the loudest shills for loosening any restrictions on campaign fianance.  And his very existence as a political force is essentially parasitical on decades of propaganda spewed forth by corporate funded liberatarian "think tanks".
The tea partiers are an unorganized force that basically stand for nothing coherent beyond anger and ignorance.  Their role over the past 5 years has been to be alternatively used as dupes or foils.

There is no counter-trend.  You are kidding yourself.

[Valmy]

Oh please, people have been bitching about corruption in the US pretty much since the moment we had a nation. This is just more of the same, and nothing has really changed.

Nonsense.  This is not more of the same.  We did not have the majority of the corruption occurring form international corps and foreign nations.  I mean sure the Roman Republic was corrupt for almost its entire history but there is a marked difference between a system with some corruption and a corrupt system.  The system as it is currently operating puts the politicians beholden to people other than the voters almost entirely.  That is not how it is supposed to work.  Now our system can tolerate a bit of that, we have always had a bit of that with corrupt political machines and so forth.  But things can reach a critical mass where it becomes a corrupt system.  With the inflow of money from largely internationalist sources over the past forty years we have reached that point.

Besides the idea because we have had a functional government with some amount of corruption at all times in our history means that no amount of corruption can ever become a problem is illogical.  Furthermore the people of the past regarded the corruption as a problem and were in favor of steps to correct it, why don't you?

[derspiess]

Gotcha! 

[Berkut]

Gotcha! 

LOL

[Eddie Teach]

I dunno, seems like the democracy of Tammany Hall/Mayor Daley/Governor Huey Long might be a tad more corrupt than today.

[dps]

I think that if anything, there's probably less corruption among elected officials now than in say, the 1880's or 1920's.

[Berkut]

I dunno, seems like the democracy of Tammany Hall/Mayor Daley/Governor Huey Long might be a tad more corrupt than today.

I think today is far worse, because it is actually "legal" corruption. It isn't "Here is a bag of money, please vote as such" but it is "Here is a funding stream, and as long as you represent us, it will remain in place". This is far worse, IMO, than overt corruption.

[Berkut]

I think that if anything, there's probably less corruption among elected officials now than in say, the 1880's or 1920's.

Of course - the USSC has defined what is happening now as not corruption, hence there is less corruption.

It has the added bonus that overt "Corruption" isn't even necessary or desirable. You can't buy off a politician retail who is already been bought off wholesale.

[frunk]

I think it's not quite that straightforward.  Bald faced outright corruption for massive personal gain is a lot more difficult now than it used to be, but soft "the peanut conglomerate financed your campaign, we'd prefer you to oppose anti-peanut legislation" is almost guaranteed.  We've lopped off the extremes of massively corrupt/free of influence to leave us with a group of politicians beholden to all sorts of interests.

[Grey Fox]

All of it.

Corporations are somehow people, that's insane.

[dps]

I dunno, seems like the democracy of Tammany Hall/Mayor Daley/Governor Huey Long might be a tad more corrupt than today.

I think today is far worse, because it is actually "legal" corruption. It isn't "Here is a bag of money, please vote as such" but it is "Here is a funding stream, and as long as you represent us, it will remain in place". This is far worse, IMO, than overt corruption.

Politicians have always relied on donations to fund their campaigns.  The only real change is that limits on individual contributions have shifted a good bit of the source of those funds from wealthy individuals to organizations.

[Razgovory]

Oh please, people have been bitching about corruption in the US pretty much since the moment we had a nation. This is just more of the same, and nothing has really changed.

The issue is less corruption, but a very high bar to anyone who wants to enter politics.