Thanks to a political system that includes such gems as Citizens United, individual people are able to donate practically a limitless amount of money in support of virtually any politician, regardless of district, regardless of anything, really. Even in direct contributions to individuals, people can donate a couple thousand to any one politician. As a result, people like millionaires and billionaires are able to hold more individual influence over more politicians than any other citizen, simply by virtue of being filthy rich.
But you know, contrary to some of the rhetoric and presumptions used around here, that doesn't mean candidates who take their money are untrustworthy.
Just because someone donates millions of dollars to a candidate's affiliated SuperPACs, that doesn't mean that candidate won't vote against that donor's interests. I mean, there's gotta be examples of this out there, somewhere.
Just because someone has been friendly with Wall Street in the past, doesn't mean that they can't still come out in favor of stronger regulation, for example.
Just because someone espouses the same platforms and policy positions that happen to align with their largest contributors, that doesn't mean it goes against what they would otherwise prefer.
Just because there happens to be a lot of big money at play in our political system, that doesn't necessarily mean that we have a big problem.
Like I said before, just because a candidate accepts campaign donations from millionaires, doesn't make them untrustworthy. If anything, if it's a matter of trust, you can oftentimes trust that a candidate who takes these donations, their future actions all become that much more predictable.
Sure, it may be easier in theory to assume that a candidate would sooner alienate their small-money donors than their big-money donors. But it's not like it is a complete given.
And sure, it may be reasonable to argue that big-money donors have far more resources available to keep tabs on their representatives to ensure that they are voting their interests, while the average citizen may not have as many resources and free-time and information sources available to do the same. But it's not like it is always the case.
And sure, it may be accurate to note that every major industry has a cadre of lobbyists who have the connections and resources to make constant direct contact with these candidates on a regular basis. But it's not like average citizens can't also form their own special interest groups to lobby candidates, themselves. There's just not as much money floating around.
And sure, our campaign finance laws are ridiculously difficult to enforce as they are, and the punishments for any violations are effectively slaps on the wrist for most of these monolithic figures. But that doesn't necessarily mean that these figures are violating our campaign finance laws on a regular basis. After all, being as lax as they are, do they really need to? Even though they apparently do.
Taken as a whole, we have a political system where big money has almost an unlimited number of avenues by which to leverage the system in its favor. If it's not direct contributions, not donations to a SuperPAC, not donations to a political party, not some lucrative lobbyist position or some other post-political job, not some special trips and vacations, not some illegal bribes or quid pro quo, then somehow somewhere, it's something else.
But, you know, it's not like any of that is a bad thing. Though if you are not one of the people partaking in any of this, it may seem like it is.
It's not a matter of these candidates being more or less trustworthy.
It's just that, if we finally have the option of a candidate who openly rejects most of these things, whose top donors do not reflect the same moneyed influence as other candidates, can we really be blamed for siding with a candidate like that?
Maybe all this money in our politics really is a big problem. And a lot of these things really could be solved through enacting stronger laws and actually enforcing them. Then again, when people in charge of changing those laws are the ones partaking the most in this big money political system, perhaps it's not so shocking that such changes are so hard to effect.
So the question I guess is, can we really get candidates in the positions where we need them to change all of that?