Is Campaign Financing an Indicator of Voter Support?

Politics in the United States grows ever-more disconnected from the people as the level of political contributions continues to rise.

Politicians, the media, and pundits alike are constantly reminding us of the amount of money that has been raised by political campaigns as an indicator of the success of those campaigns. The reality is that those heady amounts of cash are more an indicator of which wealthy individuals and international corporations have a politician in their pocket.

All it takes to see that limiting campaign contributions is to the greater good of the average citizen is to take a look at the campaign finance reports for the past four decades, then compare them to the overall economic status of the average citizen.

The disenfranchisement of the middle class, and the growing political impotence for the 90% who are not wealthy to have any impact on the laws affecting there lives, began in 1963, when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same right as a real person to contribute to political campaigns.

The premise to which the Supreme Court subscribed is that a corporation is a legal person, and grants these entities the same rights as natural born humans, including the same First Amendment privileges as an individual. I sincerely doubt that the founding fathers of our nation had that intent when they adopted the Bill of Rights in 1791.

One of the primary enemies of freedom in the fledgling nation was the close political ties between the East Indies Trading Company, one of the earliest corporations on record, and the royal family and King in England, from whom the colonies had just obtained their freedom. The EITC attempted through various means to create a stranglehold on the economy of the newly-founded United States, including piracy and Bills of Marquis issued by the King. Today, similar actions are being endorsed, although covertly and under the guise of Freedom of Speech.