In national politics, it's all about the money

Posted

If I say the words “Citizens United,” you might think I’m referring to some community action group or maybe a new local bank. But thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, Citizens United has diminished the value of your vote on Election Day and added to the public’s cynicism about voting.

In 2010, the court was asked to decide whether there should be a limit on the amount of money that is given to political candidates and committees. The court decided that the sky’s the limit, and got us into a mess that undermines the American political system.

Most voters think that when they go to the polls, their votes count. In state and local elections, they do count. The money spent in New York state on political contests is substantial, but there’s still a chance for an outsider, with limited funds, to win an election. There are some odd cases, of course, like the $70 million plus spent by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to win another term, and the $35 million spent by Gov. Andrew Cuomo to beat an underfunded and weak opponent.

Times have changed, and these days there is heavy pressure on candidates to raise a lot of money, even if they’re candidates for a seat on a local school board. My first election campaign, in 1965, had a budget of $7,500, and I had to borrow money to get to that goal. My last contest, in 1989, cost $125,000, and I didn’t have a serious opponent.

At the national level, the money that will be spent on the 2016 presidential election will be obscene. As an example, last week the billionaire Koch brothers, who are captains of several major industries, said they were in the process of figuring out which candidate they would support for president. Once that lucky person is singled out, the Koch boys are prepared to spend $1 billion to get him or her elected. Once these two mega-rich businessmen decide who their choice is, what chance do the rest of the declared candidates have to become the party’s choice?

Page 1 / 2