Party Sponsorship in US: A Substance for Addicts

Business politics as a hobby: With its new verdict regarding party spending, the U.S. Supreme Court held that industrial sponsors should influence politics. This seems to have little to do with freedom of speech.

Politics in America is addicted to money. This heavy obsession has been taking place for a long time, and its victims are not even ashamed to live out this obsession publicly. With the casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson recently going to Las Vegas, three Republican governors running for the presidency instantly traveled there. The so-called “Sheldon primary” is therefore no fiction if Adelson decides in whom to invest among the Republicans. However, rarely have those depending on him been as open about such dealings as they are now.

In a new party spending ruling, the Supreme Court has recently held that politics is better off when it receives even more money. Each individual can now donate millions, as opposed to thousands of dollars, to candidates for offices and terms in Washington. It is only the most recent ruling among half a dozen, through which the constitutional court abolished the limits on campaign financing.

The conservative Supreme Court promotes the addiction by facilitating access to the substance.

The decision’s rationale lies in freedom of speech: No right is more important than taking part in the election of politicians. Now, some opinions have been more influential than others — only because some people speak louder and often repeat themselves. However, it seems very far-fetched to equate a $1 million budget with democratic participation. Rather, business politics appears more like a hobby for representatives who have already fulfilled their obligation to collect donations.

At the Mercy of Begging Parties

This does not mean that wealthy people will always get what they want. The billionaire Adelson supported eight right-wing candidates, but all of them lost in the elections. Money alone does not win elections, and even presidential candidate Mitt Romney was defeated because he represented the financial world.

However, a vast amount of money is indispensable to winning elections in the United States. It influences politics before Election Day: Donors decide who takes part in internal party elections. During election campaigns, many big sponsors mobilize all available media to broadcast political advertisements, which spread lies and barely promote any form of debate within society. Rather, this appears to endorse the personal agendas of those paying the bills. Consequently, the dependence of donors is continuing to have a long-lasting effect in Congress and the different departments of the government. This often leads to industry doing what it wants, uncontrolled. On the other hand, following the rulings, sponsors will be facing more begging from the parties than before. They can no longer ignore the requests by pointing to their having already reached the spending limit.

Indeed, with help from their donors, Republicans could win back the majority within the U.S. Senate by fall. Nonetheless, the country that is plagued by notorious inequalities can find comfort in its own generosity: Whoever has money could voice an opinion with any means possible.