Sport for the Rich

Every new election in the United States gives evidence to both sides in the longstanding argument over whether money plays the decisive role in American politics. In this respect, these elections were no exception. Politicians, journalists, and supporters of both of the main political parties are sounding the alarm that political conflict has essentially turned into a competition of billionaires, with either liberal or conservative views. Such a description of the electoral process requires a correction: Although the wealthy spend money with pleasure, defending those views close to them, the volume of resources expended does not define the outcome of elections.

It would be a mistake to think that the presence of significant sums of money appears as a sufficient condition for victory in American elections at different levels — even taking into account the volume of money in relation to the level of the election. In and of itself, money decides far from everything — voting results prove this fact time and again. If earlier journalists and comedians joked about billionaires of conservative convictions, who spent millions of dollars in the campaigns of this or that candidate and later watched how these candidates suffered shattering defeat, then, this year’s novelty became the same sad fate of wealthy liberals.

The person who has distinguished himself most of all in this respect is the billionaire Tom Steyer, spending his money in support of climate change activists. During the recently concluded campaign, he spent $70 million — possibly more; however, the results of candidates who received money from him were extremely poor. The Senate elections in Colorado and Iowa drew particular attention — states where the Democrats have a strong position. However, in these elections, as a result of this hard struggle, the victors were not the Democrats whom Steyer supported, but Republicans, which facilitated the transfer of the Senate to Republican control.

A still wealthier and more ambitious person, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, some time ago refused his political investments from being too active in advertising. Of course, he has clear views and serious money invested in politics, but he understands that not everything depends on the size of investments, and his participation in the electoral battle in and of itself could mobilize opponents to candidates he supports. If Steyer cares about global warming, then, Bloomberg advocates a healthy lifestyle and limitations on the circulation of firearms. The latter issue provokes contentious arguments in contemporary America; therefore, the disciples of the American gun cult turned Bloomberg into a bogeyman — they call for uniting in order to respond to the machinations of a treacherous billionaire who wants to disarm the people. In this context, the estimate of observers, according to which only 10 percent of candidates Bloomberg supported attained victory, did not generate any surprise.

Wealthy liberals, whose lack of success became evident in the results of the recent elections, put Democrats and their supporters — whether journalists or rights advocates — in a difficult position. Earlier, the latter could complain about damned corruption and bloodthirsty billionaires exploiting workers, and they could summon ranks of voters to battle these plagues. However, it is now generally known that Wall Street sponsored Democrats no less, if not even more avidly, than Republicans; that Democrats have more money than Republicans; and that corruption is a concept that is difficult to define. While Democratic party bosses are attempting to come up with some kind of justification for their connection to big capital, it is beginning to dawn on some liberals from the ranks of journalists that the main idea of American politics consists not of the battle between Republicans and Democrats, but in the fact that well-to-do people will reliably control the organs of power.

There are academics, who were even able to estimate the degree of this control before the current voting. On the eve of the elections, at the University of Minnesota, they estimated that the candidates of the billionaires should win 98 percent of the time. With all the data about donations by billionaires to Democrats, blaming everything on Republicans will not work out. However, somehow, these data must be interpreted — either elections have become so expensive that one simply cannot win without the support of billionaires, or billionaires are buying candidates en masse.

Upon closer examination, both variants fall apart: Figures about general spending in the electoral campaign this year vary from $3.7 to $6 billion. The paltry nature of this sum is apparent when you consider that annually Americans spend more on mowing their lawns — slightly less than $6.5 billion. The idea that the wealthy are buying candidates wholesale is likewise unnecessary to discuss — when all is said and done, the brave politician refusing sponsor money or resisting the influence of big money is unheard of; everyone takes donations.

So, what does this whole amount do? It turns out that there exists a secret arrangement between politicians and their sponsors: The former participate in electoral competition tooth and nail, while the latter pay for this competition. Considering that these investments are not that large, it is clear that politicians are not interested in defending the interests of citizens — ordinary voters do not pay. One can complain about this fact with the same degree of success as, for example, one laments the fact that in competitive world football the interests of the sponsors are more important than those of the fans.

Thus, in both the number one sport and American politics, sponsors and club and party bosses are the same as fans — only richer. They themselves do not participate in elections; to realize their ambitions, they need a strong and capable candidate. Those candidates, who are better prepared for electoral competition, win. It turns out that money is an important factor, but not the main factor. However, even this moderate importance of money leaves no place in politics for the representation of the mass electorate, whose role is only to determine the outcomes of rich people’s games.

Nikolai Pakhomov is a political analyst.