News Corp. thwarts democracy

The cynical voices of today’s America cry that our voting system is nothing more than a farce—a competition to see who can buy more votes and ultimately outspend his or her opponent.

Admittedly, those voices have a point given the correlation between campaign budgets and the outcomes of recent elections. For example, OpenSecrets.org reports that the 2008 presidential election marked the first time in history that a collective $1 billion was raised and spent on campaigning. Campaigning for public office has become an increasingly high-dollar affair.

On Aug. 16, Bloomberg News announced that News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association to support conservative candidates in gubernatorial races across the country.

Well, so much for a “fair and balanced” news report. But who were they kidding, anyway? Fox News pundits Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly have and will act as fountainheads for radical Republican viewpoints regardless of who wins in November.

But News Corporation is not the only big spender with a stake in this race. Wellpoint Inc., our nation’s largest private health insurance provider, donated approximately half a million dollars to the RGA. The Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees donated $1.1 million and $3.3 million, respectively, to the Democrats’ cause. It is quite common for entities whose operations will be directly impacted by policymakers across the country—especially on the state level—to make donations.

This is not illegal or unconstitutional. While certain rules and restrictions apply regarding corporate donations to presidential candidates, governors associations are not hindered by a corporate donation cap. Their budgets may be as large as corporate America can afford.

It is not unheard of for media conglomerates to donate money to political parties or candidates. What is surprising is the amount donated.

The big picture debate here is not legal, illegal, should, shouldn’t, right or wrong. The big question is this: Is it democratic, in the non-partisan sense of the word? The main argument in favor of a free-for-all donation system is that there is nothing more American, nothing more in accordance with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, than putting your money where your mouth is. Many claim that the First Amendment protects both corporations’ and individuals’ rights to spend money on their politicians of choice. Then those politicians can, in turn, spend unprecedented amounts of money on television spots, radio ads, campaign rallies and fundraising dinners that bring them even more money.

Frankly, this is not democratic. It is the duty of the people to keep themselves informed, and it is not the duty of politicians and corporations to tell citizens for whom to vote.

But the bottom line is that there is nothing more American than capitalism, and there is nothing more capitalistic than throwing around a million bucks here or there at politicians in an effort to sway the country’s voting habits. So, at its core, the issue is a question of culture and priorities.

And who has the right to decide those?