In the last post, we talked about political accountability because it is the key to influencing elected officials. To follow up on that, we thought it would be helpful to show how rational political actors use it to their advantage.
Take a look at this from OpenSecrets.org (h/t Zero Hedge):
These charts show the major contributors to Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush from the last three election cycles (including the current one). As you can see, several contributors gave to both the Democrat-Obama-and one or both of the Republican candidates. In 2008, John McCain received contributions from some of the same sources, too. For instance, he received about $240,000 from Goldman-Sachs, and $343,000 from JP Morgan.
This is strategic giving for political gain. No entity can predict with perfect accuracy the victor of an election, so these major donors spread money around to cover their bases. But in 2008, Goldman and JP Morgan gave much more to Barack Obama, the heavy favorite to win after a hugely unpopular second term for the Republican George W. Bush. The candidate who spends the most money wins the election over 90% of the time. Candidates know this. Wealthy contributors know it, too, and they use that fact to achieve their political goals. If they strongly favor one of the two major candidates, s/he will probably win. Wealthy contributors do not strongly favor candidates who will oppose them in office. If an incumbent fails to coddle industry enough, you can be sure that major donors would flock to his opponent in the next election. In short, the major donors shift their support, so candidates have to work for it (Think about that. Politicians must please JP Morgan, Goldman-Sachs, and the like to win an election in the United States- sad but true if voters do nothing about it). It comes down to accountability.
Unfortunately, this is bad for democracy because it has lead to a string of Presidents who have served their donors’ interests instead of the public interest. And as a result, inequality is growing, more people are poor, the rich are richer. Although bad for most of us, it is rational behavior. In that regard, citizens–whose power is in their vote (as opposed to their campaign contributions)–should learn from the rich. That doesn’t mean they should support the Republican one election, then the Democrat the next. It does mean that voters should not be blindly partisan. It means they should hold politicians accountable. Relentlessly voting for a party instead of political goals lets politicians know that they do not have to work for your vote. Instead, they will pander to the rich who can help them buy ads that reach out to voters who might not be blind partisans and vote for them instead of the other guy. Those voters and the donors get what they want from our political system. The rest get left out.
Comments are closed.