The Perversity of American Campaign Finance

Once the time of the Democratic and Republican conventions has finished, the official campaign for the presidency of the United States will begin. In comparison, the 2012 edition suggests great similarities with that of 2008. There is one fault, to be exact, that carries a strong risk of reducing its democratic quality to the status of a hoax. This fault is finance.

For several years or even several decades, the cocktail made from money, campaign posters, televised messages and the other symbols of political matches have been analyzed, scrutinized and always criticized. Given the enormity of the sums channeled into party coffers and the appearance (to say the least) of conflicts of interest produced by this dance, it has always been seen, rightly, as a contradiction of the democratic spirit.

In the midst of the avalanche of criticism sparked by this money seeping in, the McCain-Feingold Act was passed to shed some light on all this. When? In 2002. I repeat: in 2002, not in 1992 or 1996. This law stipulated that no organization, for-profit or non-profit, could “participate in the televised distribution of a message making mention of a candidate.” But then, following a complaint filed by the very conservative Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Jan. 2010 that to give money to a candidate comes under the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. In lining up behind this conservative group, the highest court in the country reversed not only the Feingold-McCain Act, but also the ruling in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and partially reversed McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission.

Nothing sums up the reversals orchestrated by the Supreme Court better than the following common expression: It’s open season! To clarify, the open season is for Republicans and their very rich supporters, for Mitt Romney and for Karl Rove, the dour Machiavelli and master of the dirty tricks in the younger Bush’s campaigns. The Democrats? Mostly thanks to Barack Obama, their attitude is totally different: They’ll pass.

In a long investigation lead by the New Yorker, it becomes clear that when it comes to this, Romney is basically the Mr. Shameless of American politics. To be convinced, one has only to follow the basics. At fundraising parties, he talks with his financial backers, registering their grievances and slipping away when it comes time to bring up the question of money. He leaves this work to his collaborators. In short, though he may not be breaking the rules, he’s never far from their extreme limits.

In this matter, Obama’s attitude is totally different; in fact, it’s the opposite. It’s very simple: For Obama, the president of the United States of America cannot deal with money. It’s a matter of ethics and morals, and it goes without saying. For him, any chief executive who holds democratic concerns close to heart must constantly struggle so that the voice of the professor or plumber who gives one dollar has an equal weight to that of a millionaire.

Since moving into the White House, Obama has carried his scruples to the point of refusing to take photos with those who gave him millions for his 2008 campaign. He has always taken meticulous care to never turn into the Campaign-Financier-in-Chief, like Romney or even Bill Clinton. At its base, his principle is very simple: If I do things that are good and just, this will be sufficient to convince people. To this effect, it must be emphasized not once but twice that in the first day of his mandate, he banned all lobbyists from his administration.

All this considered, one will not be surprised to learn that, according to the witnesses in the article from the New Yorker, Obama bears a strong resemblance to Jimmy Carter. Like Carter, Obama believes that the massive influx of cash does not transform American democracy into a plutocracy.