The opinions represented in this article do not necessarily represent those of the staff of CUIndependent.com nor any of its sponsors.
As the 2010 election has arrived, CU students are deciding where to cast their vote while assessing what counts more this midterm: money or democracy?
Last January, the Supreme Court established a ruling that the government may not restrict corporate or independent spending on political campaigns. Likely, the Supreme Court did not anticipate the political influence that would ensue from this spending.
In addition to political influence, the increase in political spending has lead to a vast sum of money dedicated strictly to the enablement of negative campaigning.
While such corporations and groups can spend as much as the please, they cannot give money directly to the campaigns. Rather, outside spending groups can donate money to the campaign sponsors, who must then divulge the origin of the donation.
Consequently, the 2010 election has reached insanely high numbers with regards to campaign spending. According to the Washington Post, the midterm will peak at a predicted two billion dollars.
Perhaps it makes sense that corporations should be permitted to express their political preferences through expenditures. However, it doesn’t take a genius to understand why the situation of outside spending has spun out of control.
While outside spending in the 2010 election surpasses monetary records of even Presidential elections, it simultaneously pierces into an unseen domain of political censure and polarization.
A notable example of such polarity are campaign ads for television. Exceptionally ludicrous in their excess of dramatization, negativity and frequency, they are impossible to ignore. At the expense of every citizen, campaigns have gained significant influence over public political opinion.
The numbers representative of outside spending demonstrate the undeniable link between money and political influence.
Towards the beginning of the campaign cycle, the majority of outside group spending was oriented around the Republican platform. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reported the spending of $12 million on issue advocacy ads as early as September, which accounts for the Republican lead in advertising and spending in the beginning of the races.
Realizing their shortfall, Democrats increased their campaign spending immensely, predominately with funds from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
In fact, the Democrats have now raised more money than their opponents by 30 percent, according to an article from The New York Times. Since the drastic increase, Democrat projections have rallied.
The link between money and political influence is an amoral trend in American politics, and it has only been encouraged by the Supreme Court’s decision.
By allowing corporate spending to fund electoral campaigns, the power moves from the hands of the people to the checks of corporations and other groups alike. Such a movement violates and undermines the premise of democracy; the notion of “power to the people.”
The donations and funds from outside independent groups have amassed into a number so sizable, that the value of a single citizen’s vote has significantly abated. An individual would be more successful donating their dollar towards their favored party than their vote.
This monetary dynamic has debauched the democratic institution upon which we depend for our basic freedoms. If our dollar means more than our vote, we may no longer claim to live in a society based upon free democratic expression.
This circumstance would raise superfluous sentiments of rebellion and inequality if only people were more aware of it.
Regardless, many will still vote in this election without realizing that their vote may not even be an honest one. Subconsciously, decisions have been tainted by campaigns and the capitalistic, anti-democratic intentions fueling them.
Since every politician has been slain by one targeted personal advertisement or another, these campaigns are forcing Americans to judge their candidates based on what wrongs are less offensive to the personal sensibility of the voter.
Two billion dollars of campaign spending has gone to fund ads wrought with prejudice, cruelty and scathing negativity. What does this say about American politics?
Thankfully, I can say this is not the case for all campaigns. Occasionally we find the sparse politician charging down the high road. Take Colorado’s own John Hickenlooper, who focuses on clean campaigning.
Hickenlooper believes that negative campaign ads are detrimental.
“When you attack a product or a candidate, you dismiss the people that support the candidate,” he said in a speech on Oct. 18. “You can’t always win them back.”
Bravo, Hickenlooper. I would donate to your campaign if I weren’t an indebted college student.
A positive campaign such as Hickenlooper’s inspires me to support and respect the candidate based on their character and intentions, a simple but unfortunately rare interrelationship in politics.
Contrarily, dirty campaigning has no aspirations of earning respect and is only concerned with kindling hate of a certain candidate. Michael Bennet’s campaign against Ken Buck is brimming with such negativity; although both parties are equally guilty of dirty politics.
The majority of Bennet’s ads attack Buck’s pro-life stance, even in the case of rape or incest. The ads over-emphasize the buzz words rape and incest because they are controversial, polarizing topics. The intention of the advertisement is to target anger towards Buck.
This method of campaigning doesn’t even mention Bennet’s character as a politician, or what his candidacy would do for the state of Colorado.
A clean vote for this election requires individuals to isolate the candidates from their campaigns and recognize their set of beliefs, past political experiences and decisions, and goals for the future.
It is possible and beneficial to learn about a candidate without the aid or influence of their campaigns. One pure, non-partisan source that I favor is Project Vote Smart.
Project Vote Smart publishes profiles on every candidate, including relevant biographical information, issue positions, speeches, public statements and more. It is reliable and shares the straight facts.
After 30 minutes of exploring Project Vote Smart, I’m politically refreshed.
Students must be sure to vote for the political principles of their chosen candidate, not their advertisements.
Contact CU Independent Staff Writer Devon Barrow at Devon.barrow@colorado.edu.
