Mar
5
Blog Post #5: An Informed Decision
March 5, 2015 | Leave a Comment
We’ve discussed a topic in class which touched the periphery of the relationship between money and politicians. Many would agree that those in politics are much better off. Many, if not most, politicians are not near or under the poverty line. We discussed how those in the low-income brackets are unable to go into politics because there are many other, more urgent needs that have to be met. This includes working extra shifts to bring dinner to the table, to patch up old clothes, to pay for transportation, etc. With all these time-sensitive needs that have to be met, it is not a surprise that those in the low-income bracket do not participate actively in politics. Who has the time? As a result, the majority of politicians are those in the middle and upper income classes. These people have the time and resources to participate in political activities. But in a democratic government like the United States where everyone’s opinion is supposed to matter, how can everyone be represented when the majority of the politicians are in the upper income brackets?
Going further, there is, of course, a strong relationship between money and politics itself. For centuries, those with money and connections can achieve the upper hand in politics. Calling in “favors” or providing additional “financing” to persuade people is not a well-kept secret. That said, I do not completely disagree with the decision to overturn the McCain-Feingold Act. The act itself supports a great cause in the sense that it is attempting to limit the amount of influence wealthy corporations and sponsors have on free elections. These elections ultimately decide the people who will run our government and should be dealt with with an unbiased view of all the applicants. This cannot be done when voters are constantly being bombarded by biased commercials, news, and other forms of advertisements right before the primary elections. As such, under the McCain-Feingold Act, the government limits the amount of sponsored commercials in the thirty days prior to primary or caucus elections and sixty days prior to general elections. Additionally, corporations and unincorporated entities are prohibited from paying for these ads with corporate or any union treasury funds. Another issue addressed by this act was the increase role of soft money in campaign financing. The government prohibited national political party committees from generating or spending funds not subject to federal limits, regardless of state and local or national races.
While the McCain-Feingold Act aimed to limit the amount of influence sponsored commercials have on voters, it raises another concern. The fact that the government has to place restrictions on these ads thirty or sixty days prior to elections so that citizens in the United States can have a unbiased vote is quite shocking. I do not follow the political news often, but I make sure I know all the facts if I am. What the government did through the McCain-Feingold Act provides an inkling concerning how uninformed or misinformed and ambivalent many citizens are. I find it surprising when I see people believing the first things they hear, whether it is through the Internet, the TV commercials, or through magazines and newspapers. They absorb in what is handed to them on a plate without questioning whether the “facts” may be faulty or biased. They simply take the information at face value and regurgitate it to their peers. If all our friends and acquaintances were like this, my god, we’d be a very misinformed country!
But then I wonder: is it misinformed or ambivalent? Are we misinformed because everything we read and hear is biased and we take on the opinions of the first person we hear the issue from? Or are we misinformed because we don’t care enough to delve deeper into these dilemmas? It does not take that much more effort to shift our attention away from a movie and skim through the top news on Google or turn the TV channel to a news station and listen for maybe 30 minutes. But many people do not do so, despite how simple it is for us to access this information.
This is not to say that money and politics are not connected. Of course it is. With more resources comes broader reach. Messages can be aired longer, to a wider audience, multiple times a day. However, we are not a country where a lump sum of cash is sufficient to cover the truth. If we wanted to know more about something, we can definitely look it up and find at least two contrasting opinions for these political issues. Unfortunately, it seems that many citizens in this country can be easily swayed by these longer-aired messages because they do not put in the extra effort to dig up all the facts and make an informed decision. As such, a slight advantage for any side, whether it is in advertisements or news, can sway a significant percentage of the audience.
-Amy (SiJia) You
