Abstract

Money, Money, Money

The author argues that the current system of campaign finance allows corporations and special interest groups to buy influence over the U.S. government, while effectively disenfranchising the poor. To Republicans, "privatization" no longer means-cost-cutting efficiency. These days, the federal government has been diminished as a public entity, re-emerging instead as a wholly owned subsidiary of various private concerns. Whether you're from a Democratic district or from France, if you don't "contribute" or "play the game" you will suffer what is sarcastically called "payback," i.e., no recognition of civic partnership, no goodies for you. Government programs reward major political donors as though they were stockholding investors rather than citizens in a representative democracy with no greater or lesser stake than any other citizen. If money is a form of "free speech," goes the argument, then rich people end up inherently and always more persuasive than the poor. Recently, Public Campaign, the Fannie Lou Hamer Project and the William C. Velasquez Institute have combined forces to issue a report titled "Color of Money2003." "Neighborhoods comprised mostly of people of color are severely underrepresented in the campaign finance system;' says the report. "Given that money typically determines who wins political races, this means that these neighborhoods are effectively disenfranchised.".