Political Action Committees influence the votes of thousands of Americans — but how? The answer is simple: by mobilizing its bankroll and digging into its deep pockets to persuade the electorate through rhetoric. Although this means of campaigning is perfectly legal, some members of congress are fed up with the current state of PAC-led gridlock and are vying for a constitutional amendment to limit the power of big money in the United States political system.
Congressional Democrats recently proposed an amendment to the Constitution which would limit the ability of unions, PACs, and corporations to spend however much they find necessary to defeat candidates that oppose their interests. This amendment was proposed by Sen. Tom Udall, D – New Mexico, and would effectively reverse the landmark 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision which stated that any amount of money spent on campaigns by these groups is protected under the first amendment, along with another case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission which, earlier this year, removed monetary limits for wealthy contributors to campaigns.
As with most hot-button issues these days, the debate on the new campaign finance amendment is split between party lines. Democrats laud the amendment as a protective measure for the voice of the average voter and a much needed obstacle for wealthy groups and donors who already enjoy immense influence in Washington. Republicans, on the other hand, find the amendment to be a blatant challenge to the First Amendment and have united behind the idea that incorporated groups should be able to spend how much they want to back candidates that endorse their ideals and interests.
This discussion however, over the proposed amendment and the future of campaign financing, often leaves out an obvious key variable: the people’s ability to choose.
The problem isn’t that money is being spent to support corporate interests, but it lies more deeply in the fact that Americans aren’t as informed as we should be and when we do try to learn about candidates, we are pelted with a barrage of twisted half-truths, slanderous accusations, and polarizing rhetoric. The candidate with wealthiest supporters and the best advertising team wins.
This combination of an easily indoctrinated electorate and PACs with unlimited resources is toxic, with millions of Americans voting for the candidates with the most alluring television ads or the candidate who proudly says “freedom,” “democracy” and “liberty” the most times on the radio.
The main issue is not the money being spent, nor would the problems we face as a nation abate if we set caps in electoral spending. The dilemma is that we as an electorate have allowed the system to become polarized and instead of fixing it through research and discussion, we have internalized the rhetoric that we have been exposed to and have let it slowly change the way we think until we only espouse the ideas that are presented to us, not ones that we have created ourselves organically.
The way to a more functional democracy lies not in who spends how much money on campaigns, but in how we digest what we take in to make informed, practical decisions on the future of our nation.
Alex Borst is a sophomore international studies major from Madison.
