Political Science 100E

2023-07-16

Documentary response memo

How does the documentary argue that money and interest groups are influencing

politics in the U.S.?

UnRepresented heavily advances the "exchange" theory of special interest survival – the

idea that the money of special interests is primarily geared towards corruption. Money is

provided to a politician's electoral campaign, in exchange for which the politician will support or

oppose some number of policies according to the views of the money's source, regardless of

whether the politician actually holds that view. A few examples the documentary puts forward

include the fact that "election season" is now perennial, rather than the 6 months preceding an

election; that the amount of time sitting representatives have to spend raising money has grown

to four or five hours a day; and that the amount of outside money spent on campaigns has

increased drastically.

Do you find these arguments persuasive? Why or why not.

Most Americans see exchange theory as the raison d'être for special interests in the first

place, and it's hard to fault that too heavily. It would be difficult to explain Goldman Sachs

donating dozens of millions of dollars to political candidates out of the goodness of their heart. It

would be difficult for Goldman Sachs to explain that business strategy to their shareholders.

There would have to be some perceived profit from the investment, and direct exchange is the

most straightforward theory of the way an interest group profits from a donation.
 But money isn't everything. If it were, we'd be looking at the re-election campaign of

President Michael Bloomberg. Ron DeSantis isn't in his current polling slide against Trump

because of money, the money is drying up because the press has launched an avalanche of

negative coverage that his opponents are happy to capitalize on. The donor class can't pick a

nobody and elevate them to the presidency: the people have to watch and like a candidate, and

forces like the media have their own power that may not align with the prevalent flow of the

money.

Briefly discuss ideas for how these examples of the influence of political spending

could be addressed.

This is where UnRepresented took a rather disappointing turn for me. It said that a chief

way to combat corruption was (after spelling out the importance of actually trying to affect

bottom-up change at the state and local levels) a constitutional amendment forcing a balanced

budget, year after year. Not only do I consider this the most top-down and unachievable possible

way of affecting change, to go through all that and only get a balanced budget passed is

self-defeating. It doesn't address the actual lobbying/campaign finance cycle more than to the

extent that it limits the ability of congressmen to do or pass things of any kind. It doesn't actually

represent smart fiscal policy – to the extent that bringing down debts is a good idea, the U.S.'s

role in the global financial system is simply too complex and there will be a need to take on debt.

There are many better things we could do. If we're in the business of amending the

contributions, putting hard limits on electioneering money – including independent expenditures

– would simply stop the gargantuan flow of money required to be elected.

Overall, what are the implications of this discussion for democracy in the U.S?

The prevalence of special interest money is, of course, harmful to American democracy.

Democracies work best when power is concentrated in the hands of the people, and no one is

puppeting our decisions. When interest groups co-opt or bypass that power, we're looking at a

less-than-fully-democratic system, where capitalism infects the decision-making process.

But maybe that's a more stable system. The founding fathers were terrified of pure

democracy, and maybe a less-than-perfect-democracy is still just as stable. At least, until the

citizens care to try and reassert lost power, because then you have a struggle on your hands.