Abysmal Congressional Approval, Money as Speech, and Failing Democracy

Wouldn’t you think that a nation governed by democratic principles should be able to elect a national legislature that receives the approval of at least half of its population? Well, not in the United States. When a so-called “democracy” repeatedly fails to elect high government officials whose job performance receives the approval of half the population that voted those officials into office, the citizens of that “democracy” ought to seriously consider the reasons for that failure.


CONGRESSIONAL JOB APPROVAL IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE 1974

Here is a graph of Congressional job approval in the United States since 1974:


In the 23 year period between 1974 and the beginning of 1998, Congressional job approval consistently varied between slightly below 20% and slightly above 40%. From the beginning of 1998 to September 2001 it did considerably better, varying between about 40% and 60%, coincident with the economic bubble of the latter Clinton years. It then shot up to over 80% coincident with the September 11 attacks of 2001, as usually happens when a nation perceives itself to be in danger. But that didn’t last very long at all, as it dipped back below 50% by mid-2002, shot back up to 60% with the onset of the Iraq War in the spring of 2003, and then dipped back below 40% by the beginning of 2005, where it has remained ever since. The latter Bush II years were characterized by Congressional approval ratings in the low 20s and even into the teens. At the onset of 2007 and again in 2009 Congressional approval briefly shot back up to about 40%, following the election of the first Democratic Congress in 12 years and the first simultaneous election of a Democratic Congress and President in 14 years, respectively. But the hopeful expectations generated by the national elections of 2006 and 2008 were quickly dashed, and were followed by the dipping of Congressional approval back into the low twenty’s and below.


THE ROLE OF MONEY IN U.S. ELECTIONS

Money bundling

We did have enough honest Congresspersons in the early 21st Century that, in combination with overwhelming public support, Congress managed to enact the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (better known as the McCain-Feingold Act). That legislation among other things established inflation-adjusted individual contribution limits for political campaigns. (In 2009-2010, those limits were $2,400 per individual per election.) The purpose of these limits is obvious. If there are no caps on campaign contributions by individuals or corporations, then they can contribute hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to a political candidate, with the implicit understanding that the candidate will return the favor.

But money bundling is routinely used to get around those limits. “Money bundling” is the process whereby a single person, typically the CEO, owner, or other high level personage of a powerful corporation, collects money from hundreds of individuals and hands it over to a political candidate as a “campaign contribution”. The political candidate doesn’t much care about the original source of the money. All he knows is that the corporation gave him the money. Since the corporation gave him the money, he owes a favor to that corporation. The ultimate effect can be as if there was little or no limit on individual contributions.

George W. Bush set records for the use of money bundling. A 2004 article in the Los Angeles Times discussed how he used money bundling in preparation for the 2004 Presidential election:



Money equated with speech in U.S. Supreme Court decisions

The 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo was the beginning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s efforts to equate money with speech. That decision was a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it recognized that there should be a limit to the First Amendment’s free speech clause protection of campaign contributions. Specifically, it said that if excessive campaign contributions could be seen to have corrupting influences on the behavior of our government, Congress should be allowed to put a limit on campaign contributions for that reason.

On the other hand the Buckley decision essentially said that money can be equated with speech, by saying that our First Amendment protects the right of candidates for public office and independent parties to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns in the form of “speech”. That decision is explained here:


The 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision Randall v. Sorrell went well beyond Buckley v. Valeo. That decision not only reiterated the principle of allowing large political campaign expenditures by candidates for public office and third parties, but it also struck down a portion of a 2006 Vermont law that limited campaign contributions, thus making even more clear the equating of money and speech.

The 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. The Federal Elections Commission was a particularly severe perversion of our First Amendment rights, by virtue of the fact that, by allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to air their political views – i.e. propaganda in the service of their self interest – their ability to drown out the views of ordinary Americans was greatly expanded.

The decision defied common sense in its astounding hypocrisy, in that it outright denied that spending money on behalf of government officials had the potential to even give the appearance of government corruption:



The disconnect between Congressional disapproval and election results

When money inordinately influences election results, we see a disconnection between national trends in voter preferences and election results. While a political party that is more favorable to ordinary people may be clearly favored nationally, the political party that is more favorable to the interests of the wealthy will pour tons of money into local campaigns in the months preceding an election. Thus, through access to our communications media and other corporate spending, corporate and oligarchic interests are able to persuade voters who favor the peoples’ party nationally that in their local races it is the corporate/oligarchic candidate who best represents their interests.

The results of this can be clearly seen in data that breaks down Congressional approval ratings by political party. In the 26 Gallup Congressional approval polls between June 1999 and April 2011, the public favored Congressional Democrats over Republicans in 22 of those 26 polls – the only 4 exceptions were following the 9-11 attacks. Yet, during this time period Republicans controlled Congress more than Democrats most of the time. Even on the eve of the Republican Congressional election landslide of 2010, in August 2010, the American public favored Democrats in Congress more than Republicans.


FAILING DEMOCRACY

Equating money with speech is an outrageous perversion of democracy

It is well known that money contributed to political campaigns is translated into votes. Therefore, by allowing unlimited campaign contributions, the end result is that the wealthy have orders of magnitude more influence in elections (i.e. more votes) than other people. This makes a mockery of the principle of one person, one vote.

The problem of equating money with speech is that some people have a lot more money than other people. Therefore, wealthy people, by virtue of the fact that they have orders of magnitude more money than poor people, also have orders of magnitude more access to “speech”. Doris Haddock said it about as well as anyone:


The equating of money with speech is an outrageous perversion of our First Amendment. Campaign contributions do not express opinions. The permitting of huge or unlimited campaign contributions does not contribute one iota to the discovery of truth, which is the purpose our Founding Fathers had in mind for the free speech clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution. Quite the contrary, when excessive, campaign contributions are frequently used to “influence” – i.e. bribe – government officials to do the bidding of those who contribute money to them, to the detriment of the public interest. Legislators, in the interest of those whom they are elected to serve, should have not only the right, but the obligation to create legislation that prohibits that kind of corruption. Jeff Milchen explains the meaning and consequences of this type of perversion with respect to the Randall v. Sorrell USSC decision:


The U.S. Supreme Court statement in Citizens United that independent expenditures of money on political campaigns “do not give rise to corruption” or even “the appearance of corruption” is even more absurd. The five justices who voted for that decision are either stupid beyond belief or they are liars. Either way, they should all be impeached for that decision alone.


Consequences

At least from the early 1930s to the present, with the onset of FDR’s New Deal, the Republican Party has been the Party of the corporatocracy and the oligarchy, while relative to the Republican Party, the Democratic Party has been the Party of the people. But as money has come to play a larger and larger role in election campaigns, and as the wealth divide in our country has increased to record highs, the Democratic Party has in recent years become more attuned to the corporatocracy/oligarchy and accordingly less attuned to the people. The effects of that can be seen in abysmally low Congressional approval ratings even since 2007, during which time the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress for four (of four and a half) years and one House of Congress for the other half year.

There is a very good reason for why public approval of the U.S. Congress has been almost constantly below 50% for the past 17 years and has hovered in mid-20% range for the past couple of years. Our government is corrupt to its core. In a society where bribery of government officials is routinely practiced and legal – and where therefore politicians have become dependent upon money from wealthy donors to stay in office – it should not be the least bit surprising that sociopaths tend to rise to the top of our system. Nor should it be surprising that the sociopaths that we elect in such a system represent and serve primarily the interests of a small minority of wealthy individuals, and that the rest of society suffers accordingly for that.

Thus it is that the United States is fast becoming, or has already become a plutocracy – a government run by the wealthy and for the wealthy. More specifically:


And this is the way it will remain until the American people recognize the consequences of a system of government in which: bribery of government officials is legal; in which money has overwhelming influence in our elections, and; in which the highest court in the land allows unlimited use of money to influence elections on the absurd assumption that doing so cannot give rise to corruption.

What counts is the approval ratings for individual politicians from the people in their districts.

I can't find ANY. Can you?

if I tell a politicians to do something and give him money that's a bribe. If I give him money first and then ask him to do something that's a contribution. :smoke:

it seems to me that some of the highest approval ratings come from when Clinton was being impeached.

And then they seemingly approved of the Patriot Act in 2001, and also the war on Afghanistan.

Clinton's highest approval ratings came during that time too. It was probably due to the fact that the economy seemed to be doing quite well at the time. I think that the relatively high approval ratings following 9/11 and the early stages of our wars had to do with the fact that we seemed to be in a crisis mode. Approving of Congress -- and Bush -- seemed to be a way of pulling us together as a nation.

Top notch piece. It's clipped, saved and shared by this Progressive.

I always love to hear when my writing is shared by others.

is the Supreme Court did not "equate money with speech". They did not cause or create, but simply recognized as a practical truth, the state of affairs that the ability to raise and spend money is inexorably linked to the ability to disseminate political messages, and that a restriction on the former amounts to a restriction on the latter. This is a state of affairs that has existed in this country and in societies all over the world since long before there was a United States Supreme Court. Those with more money have always been able to do more than those with less money, and how one SC suddenly caused a sea change in that situation is something that no one seems to be able to explain. Our democracy did not all of a sudden become perverted by money, because that influence has always been there. People did not all of sudden become unequal citizens, because they never were in the first place. Nor can anyone seem to specify what level of inequality they are willing to tolerate and that they regard as constitutionally permissible.

Too much more that's bogus in this rant to take time rebutting it all, but here are just a couple:

It is well known that money contributed to political campaigns is translated into votes. Therefore, by allowing unlimited campaign contributions, the end result is that the wealthy have orders of magnitude more influence in elections (i.e. more votes) than other people. This makes a mockery of the principle of one person, one vote.

When was the last time a campaign ad deprived someone of their right to cast their vote? When was the last time a campaign ad caused a rich person's ballot to be counted twice? What is being bought are not votes, but the opportunity to persuade people to vote in a certain way, a very different thing indeed, since individual choice intervenes no matter how many ads a candidate runs or has run on their behalf. And please don't harp on "deceptive ads" as if they were something new, unique to one party or something that voters are fundamentally incapable of coping with.

Campaign contributions do not express opinions. The permitting of huge or unlimited campaign contributions does not contribute one iota to the discovery of truth, which is the purpose our Founding Fathers had in mind for the free speech clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution.

A silly strawman. Who ever said that campaign contributions express opinions? They permit a candidate to disseminate their opinions, and the opposing candidate to disseminate theirs, so that the voters can better decide between them. And yes, the Founding Fathers DID have in mind that more speech is better than less, and that the government should not be able to say "You've talked enough, now you have to shut up".

What this is really all about is that you don't like the KIND of opinions and information that are being disseminated, but the First Amendment doesn't make those kinds of ideological distinctions. Would you and most other people on this site be up in arms about the CU decision if Democratic candidates were out-raising and outspending and out-advertising their Republican opponents by a huge margin? If unions and corporations were running ads supporting Democratic candidates and progressive causes to a much greater extent than Republican and conservative causes? Would you insist on a fairer and more equal system then? Would you complain that Republican voters were being deprived of their right to "one person, one vote"? Or would you be fine if the side you favor was having much more success getting their message out?

of living human beings to speak freely when airing grievances.

I am gross and perverted
I'm obsessed 'n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little had changed
I am the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you

I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I am the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I am the slime oozin' out
From your TV set

You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you


Until the day that we don't need you
Don't got for help...no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold

That's right, folks..
Don't touch that dial

Well, I am the slime from your video
Oozin' along on your livin'room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go

to obtain the right to "speech". Do you not realize that to the extent that people use money to make their voices heard in that way, people with less money don't get a chance to do that? People watch a certain amount of television. Money is used in competition to get one's message out.

You ask "When was the last time a campaign ad deprived someone of their right to cast their vote?" Campaign ads distribute misinformation, which translates into votes. You want to ignore that fact or claim it's not important because it doesn't force anyone to vote in a certain way. Well, that's the way the world works -- money used for campaign ads or to bribe elected officials translates into votes, whether you think it's worth being concerned about or not.

And no, it has nothing to do with my not liking the KIND of information that is being disseminated. It wouldn't be any more fair if Democrats were doing the same thing.

Also, you make a big deal about the fact that it's always been this way -- money exerting great political influence -- as if we shouldn't be concerned about it because it's always been this way. If that's the way you feel, I just don't know what to say. You can't get any more conservative than that.

what constitutes "misinformation"? From the standpoint of political speech, the First Amendment makes no such distinctions. Are you really arguing that political ads do not qualify as protected speech unless they are 100% accurate? What you don't seem to grasp is that people are allowed to base their voting decisions on what you might consider to be right-wing, corporate propaganda, just as you are allowed to base your voting decisions on what others are equally convinced is left-wing, socialist propaganda. That's the "free" party in "It's a free country". Harping on deceptive advertising in all this is just lame hand-waving.

And where did I say that we shouldn't be concerned about money exerting political influence, or that I thought our system of campaign financing was just dandy? Nowhere. I argued that CU did not out of the blue bring about any great change in the way things have been for a long time. Certainly not enough change to explain the obsession so many people seem to have with this case.

When you contribute to a political campaign, do you just give money to the candidate whose views you want to prevail, with the hope that they will raise a lot more money than their opponent and influence a lot more voters? Or do you give money equally to both sides in an election, out of a sense of fairness? Or do you find out which candidate has less money, and make your contribution to them, regardless of party, so that they will have a more equal chance to get their message out?

Seriously, after taking so much time on the OP, I expected better from you. Your counter arguments (the ones you were even able to make) don't even get to first base.

it's not really about the KIND of information.

You seem to think it is cool if the first amendment is used to dismantle democracy. Insofar as there ever was a democracy to dismantle.

"so that the voters can better decide between them"

but it does not work that way at all. Imagine two candidates, the Republican and the Democrat. The Republican works to serve the top 5% - those who have most of the money to donate. How is their opponent gonna get enough money to compete? Only by sucking up to the big donors.

Look at an actual election, in my own district, which I happen to know fairly well. Incumbent with $1 million dollars in the bank, running against a no-name candidate, with, let's say $10,000 to spend. There is no "They permit a candidate to disseminate their opinions, and the opposing candidate to disseminate theirs". The voters clearly only get to hear one side of the story. Not to mention that much of a campaign depends on "name recognition" which an incumbent already has.

No, your version of "money = speech" simply means that rich people get to speak and poorer people don't.

"You seem to think it is cool if the first amendment is used to dismantle democracy. Insofar as there ever was a democracy to dismantle."

When evidence is excluded from a murder trial because it was seized illegally, without a search warrant, and someone who is clearly guilty escapes punishment, do you complain that the defense attorney and judge apparently "think it is cool" if the 4th Amendment is used to help criminals go free? Do you think it's cool that the First Amendment is used to help racists disseminate their messages?

And I'll ask you the same questions I asked above:

When you contribute to a political campaign, do you just give money to the candidate whose views you want to prevail, with the hope that they will raise a lot more money than their opponent and influence a lot more voters? Or do you give money equally to both sides in an election, out of a sense of fairness? Or do you find out which candidate has less money, and make your contribution to them, regardless of party, so that they will have a more equal chance to get their message out?

maggots that feed off our taxpayer dollars. Hasn't changed in 30 years.

limbaugh and hanities rating dropped about 30% since october and the left orgs and dem party need to finally mount a real challenge against the right's most important weapon- 1000 right wing think tank-coordinated megaphones that are the propaganda mechanism most responsible for creating the alternate reality in which 2 + 2 can equal 3.

picket those limbaugh megastations and shame their LOCAL sponsors - those are teabagger (dittohead- GOP base) headquarters.

shame universities that mock their own 'mission statements' and goals by broadcasting sports on stations that sell anti-science global warming, make excuses for torture and racism, and lie about and attack all things liberal/american.

now is the time for blue communities to convince many of their biggest radio stations that the hate, racism, and lies are unacceptable, until those stations lose enough of their local sponsors that they have to begin to offer balance.

this needs to happen this year, before the huge money bomb from the right and the dirty tricks that can only be sold on unchallenged radio, hit us.

I sure haven't seen much evidence of that.

as entertainers, want to be on the loudest stations, the ones that broadcast the local or state sports, and some have no political sense of how important or how racist and anti democratic limbaugh and sons are because they've never heard it. if the left wont tell them by calling them or picketing those stations most will still be there-

i have spoken with sponsors who considered it a difference if their ads ran on the station but not during limbaugh or hannity etc. some get in on packages or their ad agencies put them there.

i have spoken to owners who hate limbaugh, who are dems, but it's a biz decision and a couple then ended up switching to other stations and the progressive station.

it will happen if the left orgs gets off their lazy ipod listening asses and figure it out, and starts the shaming.

http://www.spockosbrain.com/

Apparently he put down his iPod and started doing what you're talking about..

you have written, Time for change. My only major disagreement is with the idea that we actually HAD a democracy at some point other than when FDR was elected. We certainly do not have one now and probably never will again.

I prefer to think of ours not as a democracy but as a representative government system. Sad to say, the wealthy get represented far better and far more often than the rest of us.

A huge part of the problem is the campaign money. Another huge part of the problem is the apathy of the voting public. If we were attending to our duties as citizens we would be constantly sifting through the various media to determine the REAL story of what's happening in our nation and we would be ready to vote intelligently when the time came. Now, the vast majority of citizens are more focused on their personal entertainment or their familial duties or just the basics of trying to survive, so they are not informing themselves. Then, when a campaign heats up they are totally susceptible to the machinations of the political propagandists who are paid to make their candidates 'electable'. I think this syndrome is incurable in America.

Without a keen awareness of how governments came to be representative instead of autocratic the American citizen doesn't know how important his/her function is in this alleged democracy. We are now a nation of history-ignorant people. And we are paying the price.

Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I see this on every level and as it is applied to every aspect of our lives.