One possible explanation of the decline in young voting is the national shift to the political right. Young voters have for the last decade tended to vote Democrat, and the failures of the Democrats during the 2010 election cycle and the resurgence of conservative sentiment may have repelled young voters from the political scene in general.
However, while allowing for the fact that the very recent shift towards conservatism may have alienated a left-leaning younger generation, we should consider the possibility that broader trends in the evolution of the American political process are causing the general apathy of younger voters.
The unregulated flow of money into American politics, for example, may be discouraging Generation Y from being politically active. Politics has come to resemble legalized bribery, where private entities systematically donate to politicians on opposing sides to ensure political back-scratching from whomever is elected. Before the 2008 election, for example, Chesapeake Energy CEO Audrey McClendon donated the maximum amount possible to both the leading Democratic candidates (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) and the leading Republican candidates (Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney). Incidentally, his salary in 2010 was $21 million and his company paid $0 in income taxes despite $2.8 billion in profits.
In 2010, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission invalidated previous federal campaign law, which prohibited corporations and unions from using general funds to advocate for or against a candidate. The Citizens United decision drastically inflated private and corporate money's place in politics. In the opinion of the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy quoted himself from McConnell v. Federal Election Commission:
"The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it."
The problem with Kennedy's statement is that Citizens United did not place civic discourse in the hands of the people in any real sense. In reality, the legalization of unlimited donations to Super PACs gave more power to the extremely wealthy and no one else. The use of the free speech defense in a case which undermines the influence of individual voters made the decision all the more distasteful.
As of February 27, $130,334,342 has been raised by Super PACs supporting individual candidates. The infusion of PAC money into the 2012 Republican primary, especially, is unprecedented; this includes $36 million raised by the pro-Romney Restore Our Future, $13 million by the pro-Gingrich Winning Our Future, and $23 million raised by unaffiliated conservative PAC American Crossroads.
The track records of the Super PACs paint a disheartening picture of the Citizens United ruling and its contribution to political discourse. Restore Our Future alone has (supporting Romney) already spent $25 million on this election cycle. Of that money, however, only $800,000 has been used to fund positive ads arguing for Romney as a candidate; $7 million has been spent on negative ads against Rick Santorum and the PAC spent $17 million on ads attacking Newt Gingrich, famously credited for ruining Gingrich's chances in the Iowa and Florida primaries.
With the power of a well-funded campaign clearly seen in Romney's case, it is discouraging to know that such a campaign could be funded by a few or even one ambitious and opinionated billionaire. Unlike Restore Our Future, the Gingrich-backing and horridly named Winning Our Future has spent more on positive ads about Gingrich than negative ads about other candidates. However, the PAC itself has been almost exclusively funded by Sheldon Adleson, a Las Vegas casino mogul. Adleson has donated $17 million to Winning Our Future so far and has said that he is willing to spend as much as $100 million in support of Gingrich. Bizarrely, Adleson himself says that he is opposed to the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals in politics: "I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections," Adleson said, "but as long as it's doable I'm going to do it. Because I know that guys like Soros [George Soros, billionaire and supporter of liberal political organizations] have been doing it for years, if not decades."
It's true that the fundraising marathon is not limited to the Republican Party: since the Obama campaign's highly successful fundraising in 2008, it has been speculated that Obama in 2012 may raise as must as $1 billion in campaign donations and Priorities USA funds. The "Billion Dollar Campaign" prediction may be inflated, but the amount raised will still be significant. In February, for example, Obama went on a 3-day multi-state tour, hosting 8 fundraisers and netting $8.6 million; one of the fundraising dinners charged $35,800 per guest. Obama recently condoned the support of Priorities USA, the Super PAC unofficially associated with him, and members of the White House administration (though not Obama personally) will be involved with the PAC's fundraising efforts.
Legally, the Citizens United decision disallowed coordination between PACs and candidates, but it created loopholes by which the PACs can use their funds exclusively for one candidate. This essentially lets candidates collect unlimited donations while still technically adhering to campaign finance laws, which limit the amount of money candidates can receive from individual donors and private interests.
Even the founders and staffs of Super PACs are usually previous employees of the candidate the PAC supports. PACs were intended to be a voice for groups of citizens advocating for specific causes, but as a result of the Citizens United ruling they are now used as a tool to subvert the legally proscribed model of campaign funding.
The arms-race style of this monetary power struggle is an unfortunate consequence of the 2011 Citizens United decision. It is also a plausible cause of dissatisfaction among younger voters and the population at large. Colorado Senator Michael Bennet stated: "Allowing corporate influence to flow unfettered into federal campaigns will only undermine the confidence the American people have in their government." His predictions seem to have come true: according to the Pew Research Center, 65% of people believe the Citizens United ruling and the resulting influence of Super PACs are having a negative impact on the presidential campaign. This sentiment is fairly nonpartisan: the Pew results included 60% of registered Republicans, 63% of registered Democrats, and 67% of registered Independents expressing their dissatisfaction with the increasing role of private money in politics.
Under the guise of free speech, the Citizens United decision unintentionally allowed for an influx of more money into the political process, increasing the power of the wealthy few while decreasing the political influence of the general public. This process, exasperated by the politicization of the media, hyperpartisanship, and a deficit of leadership, has caused disappointment and distrust among younger voters.
No comments:
Post a Comment