Then-Republican presidential hopeful John McCain's chartered jet landed in San Diego, Calif., in August of 2008 as the candidate was en route to a campaign fundraiser. Both Sen. McCain and President Barack Obama raised more than $1 billion during their campaigns – which could be a sign that money is playing an increasing role in politics.
(Zuma / Newscom)Photos (1 of 1)
ECONOMIC SCENE: US is slipping toward plutocracy
A look at the influence of money on US politics.
By David R. Francis | Staff Writer/ August 25, 2009 edition
For $23.95 you can buy a T-shirt for your favorite youngster with the words “Future Lobbyist” printed on the chest. It’s cute, perhaps. It also serves as a rueful commentary on the state of American democracy.
Is the “Land of the Free” becoming the Land of the Moneyed, a plutocracy where the rich and powerful have disproportionate political influence? Consider:
•Last year a record $3.3 billion was spent on lobbyists, roughly twice the 2001 amount. This year, despite the worst recession since the ’30s, the total is on track to reach a new high.
•The 2008 presidential candidates raised more than $1 billion for the first time.
•In a 2007 global survey of anticorruption measures, the US ranked high in almost all categories except reining in the influence of money on politics. There it rated a special negative mention along with Canada, Bulgaria, and Latvia. (The index, by Global Integrity, measures the safeguards in place, not how often or effectively they’re used.)
“There is certainly an overwhelming influence of money and corporate power” in the US, says Gar Alperovitz, a professor of political economy at the University of Maryland in College Park.
The latest example is healthcare reform. In the second quarter of 2009, the health industry (pharmaceuticals, health products, doctors, insurance, hospitals, and nursing homes) spent $133 million on lobbyists, reckons the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.
That doesn’t count lobbying by numerous associations. The US Chamber of Commerce alone spent $26 million on lobbying in the first half of this year, “a good chunk” on the health issue, says Dave Levinthal, spokesman for the center. Earlier this month, the Campaign Media Analysis Group reported $52 million has been spent this year on broadcast ads, pro and con, related to reform.
Polls indicate the public wants healthcare reform and a public-insurance option. So the health-insurance industry is pretending to be in favor of reform while trying to kill it through campaign contributions, ads, and lobbying, says Wendell Potter, who until recently headed corporate communications at CIGNA, a major health-insurance company.
Some 350 health-industry lobbyists, many of them former members of Congress or their staff, are swarming Capitol Hill, he says. The industry uses “deception, disinformation, outright lies, and fear mongering” to peel away reform’s supporters.
The industry’s “mission No. 1” is to block any public-insurance option that would compete with private insurance. After a decade of mergers and acquisitions, the health-insurance industry is now “a very large cartel,” he says.
Many nations don’t want to shed light on the hidden influence of wealth. “No other governance reform seems to create greater problems for the vast majority of countries,” Global Integrity said in its 2008 survey of 92 nations.
Is the influence of money on US politics outsized? In other industrial nations, political campaigns tend to be shorter, and usually their financing is regulated in various ways.
Moreover, says Mr. Alperovitz, trade unions provide some balance of power to the might of business and wealth. In Sweden, 85 percent of the labor force is organized; in other major nations 35-40 percent. That compares with 7.4 percent of workers in the private sector in the US.
The US is slipping toward plutocracy because of rising inequality of income and wealth, warns Greg Palast, author of “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.” Business buys Republicans and rents Democrats on each major issue, he adds.
( More stories )
Comments
2. Paul Haeberlen | 08.25.09
“Moreover, says Mr. Alperovitz, trade unions provide some balance of power to the might of business and wealth.”
It is misleading to compare “business” and “labor” as opposing forces or even similar forces. Both are complex organizations. Labor is very focused on protecting jobs and markets. Business does have to deal with labor, but also with competition, markets, technology, regulation, etc.
Why is the concept of lobbying held only in a negative light? Legislators do not have the knowledge to make informed decisions on the many and complex issues that they face. Lobbyists can and do provide analysis of issues that is necessary to the decision process.
3. Rick Onderdonk | 08.25.09
Is this really new? Have we not been a plutocracy since the beginning of our nation’s history? Think of the early founding fathers, most were all wealthy land owners. Also, Mark Twain’s Gilded Age was legendary for the way wealthy bought political control and favors. It has to be good that the media points this out now and then. (As long as they are not part of some special lobby themselves.) Interest groups and lobbys have become like a 4th branch of government. Seems to be the nature of democracy. We just need to determine which interest groups hold a disproportionate influence and get public servants courageous enough to stand up to them.
4. Matt | 08.25.09
Re: “…lobbys have become like a 4th branch of government.”
Used to be that Journalism was considered the 4th branch. Anybody remember the phrase “Fourth Estate”?
I don’t have a problem with lobbyists informing our politicians - essentially using fact-based knowledge to influence. I do have a problem with them using money to do the influencing.
5. richard potter | 08.25.09
The staggering $3.3 billion spent to influence our government leaders, republicans and democrats, both the president and congress, stands in every respect against the best ideals of a free and democratic government, as millions have lost homes and sleep in parks, women and children go hungry, the outrage of rationing and death panels, and young people denied opportunities for jobs and education. Shame! Shame! Make your feelings known to both congress and the president. Where did the real John McCain that stood against lobbists and billion spent on campaigns? Where did Barack Obama go that believes he has a mandate for government reform and says he speaks for the children, the young, the old and disenfranchised groups in this country. WE NEED A SQUARE DEAL!
6. Jim | 08.25.09
@Paul Haeberlen “Lobbyist can and do provide analysis …”
Yes, indeed they do and completely biased as well.
7. Richard L. Tradewell | 08.26.09
As usual, Francis presents a distorted one-sided polemic. FACT: inequality is measured worldwide by the Gini coefficient as discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient.
U.S. inequality is about where it was in 1929. Yes, America is more unequal than Europe. Most economists think that is a good thing: it leads to greater incentive to work and produce.
No, most Americans do now not want a “public option.” When they read the find print they realized it would destroy competition and, according to Lewin Group of actuaries, lead to millions being dropped from private coverage as firms attempt to meet onerous new government regulations.
8. wnyoldguy | 08.27.09
Slipping? Repelling by leaps and bounds into the abyss would be more representative of the changes occurring.
9. James Corbin | 08.30.09
Why is lobbying Congress evil? I can voluntarily join organizations that suit my political leanings and together with other like-minded individuals make our influence felt. Why is this wrong? I have written dozens of letters to Congress and do you think they have nearly the impact of an organization that represents thousands of such like-minded citizens? Naturally, lobbyists shouldn’t be allowed to offer gifts, meals, etc. to any politician, but lobbying for a political cause is certainly nothing to be ashamed of.
10. Mike | 08.31.09
Some commenters have noted that lobbying is not unatural or un-historical. What is, is the amount of time and effort spent by a few corporations (not humans) to obtain one particular outcome, for a specific entity, not a group as some would claim. Congress should create new categories for lobbyists: Mega lobbyists, Superlobbyists, and Shell Lobbyist (Those that create fake organizations which lobby with the donor corporation’s money). Oh, and don’t forget the most important lobbyist category we have had from the beginning of this country: Voter.
11. John | 09.03.09
Even worse than plutocracy is plutarchy which could be next since any democracy would be lost too.
12. Michael Collins | 09.16.09
The wealthier a company becomes, the more influence it can muster to continue accumulating wealth. As often happens, that money is put to good use in our nation’s capitol through paid lobbyists and the retired member of Congress full employment act — a placement program with lobbying firms to expand their income exponentially when they retire from politics. Money buys what’s called “influence.” What that means in real life is laws and regulations that make the wealthier even stronger, less vulnerable to real competition.
When you win every time because you’re able to make up the rules to insure you’ll win, that’s not a successful business strategy. It’s a foregone conclusion. Yet the winners keep winning. They even own the means of informing people about their winnings and exceptional skills, all with the intent of keeping the public diverted while the greatest wealth transfer in history continues.
This is a great article. My compliments.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Nikola | 08.25.09
SLIPPING toward plutocracy?!? You just outlined a series of facts that indicate we’ve been there for quite some time now.