To cut to the chase, the lobbying industry Edsall portrays is really a fourth branch of government and, increasingly, the most powerful of them all. The reason is simple: elected representatives are all about fundraising. It's their bread and butter activity, not crafting legislation or constituent service. Without an overflowing campaign war chest, members of Congress can hardly survive in office; there is always someone in their state or district with the financial capabilities to take their place.
Who do members turn to for help? Lobbyists. These are the folks that sponsor cocktail receptions, fundraising dinners, "meet and greet" events with the voters from back home. I worked in the grocery industry for years, and the time and money grocers spent on Congress (and the regulatory agencies) was huge. Yet compared with realtors, military contractors, payday lenders, dentists, et al, grocers were minor league players.
The lobbying industry keeps the wheels of Washington politics greased and running. The only thing lobbyists ask in return is "fair treatment" from Senators and Congressmen. Nine times out of 10, they get it without breaking a sweat. "Fair," of course, is in the eye of the beholder, not often the general public.
American voters understand none of this. It's not taught in school. Young people are incredibly naive about the outsized role of money/influence in our political system. Adults look the other way. It is ruining our nation.
200
Tax increases? No. RESTORATION of previous taxes on the wealthy.
“People who have experienced higher inequality during their lives are less in favor of redistribution” Yes! Against redistribution to the rich - like tax cuts for the rich for nothing. Destruction of healthcare to give to the rich.
Who knew Romney was right - 47% of Americans are indeed moochers. Look at trump's base trying to mooch off Mexicans to pay for their wall - don't forget all the moochers in the moocher-in-chief's cabinet. The wealthy mooch through tax giveaways, tax payer subsidies for stadiums and business relocations - they'd have their neighbors pay for their gated walls too. Worst of all, it's the wealthiest mooching off of the poorest and vulnerable in our nation - not the other way around as Romney meant it.
The self-reinforcing spiral of wealth inequality and private sector control of government is something resembling communism - top down control by plutocrats at the top, control of government and everyone below is now working for the state - i.e. the Plutocrats.
"... emphasis is often on social issues such as abortion and civil rights,..." Of course, does anyone really think the Kochs, Adelsons, Mercers care about abortion? It is a wedge issue to distract from their nefarious wealth accumulation goals.
Note how the opioid epidemic caused by American pharmaceutical industry has morphed into drug traffickers from south of the border - all to get the tax payer class to pay for trump's wall.
13
"In the 2017-18 election cycle, securities and investment firms gave a total of $60,566,716, split 53-46 percent between Democrats and Republicans; real estate gave $52,205,352 (51 to 48); the health industry, $159,255,037, (54.6 to 45)..."
In other words, lobby money prefers Democrats. Why? Because the lobbysts want to reduce inequality?
7
The Onion accurately addressed this issue back in 2010: https://politics.theonion.com/american-people-hire-high-powered-lobbyist-to-push-inte-1819571821
2
Further proof that Citizens United is one of the most destructive decisions issued by the Supreme Court.
16
Might have been better to stay a Brit Colony and evolve into a fully independent parliamentary democracy. US now too constrained and strangled by its unchallengeable constitutional set up to develop a truly representative democracy. But wish well to any, even minor, attempts at reform
6
When will the public say enough , enough already and start a meaningful revolt? When they figure out they have been had by the elite. All hell might break out. There was a time when poll cats like trump ( when America was great) would be run out of town on a rail after being tarred and feathered. Lets become great again and ……...
4
Are liberal outlets like the NYtimes partially responsible here? One cannot help but noticing in the product advertisements run by this paper that it is dependent commercially on the good will of the ultra-rich. And how often do we see a true expose of the specific involvements of a particular Congressman with lobbyists that represent the corporate elite? How often is it considered newsworthy when a senator or congressman accepts a comfortable sinecure with a lobbying firm? The Gray Lady and other leading media should report more aggressively in this area. Thanks to Thomas Edsall for getting us on the right track.
14
As the late, great Ray Charles observed, and wrote:
"Them That Got"
That old sayin them that's got are them that gets
Is somethin I can't see
If ya gotta have somethin
Before you can get somethin
How do ya get your first is still a mystery to me
I see folk with long cars and fine clothes
That's why they're called the smarter set
Because they manage to get
When only them that's got supposed to get
And I ain't got nothin yet
Whoah, I tell you all
I ain't found nothing yet.
7
I’m happy Pelosi strong-armed her way back to the gavel. The country can see her demented leadership in full view.
4
Your articles are among the most interesting and insightful in the Times. Thank you for your wisdom, Tiffany
6
Great article. Thanks! Needed the info.
2
the american way
lobbying - bribery
inequality - greed
success - thievery
ideals - corruption
3
Dang!
If only we had a populous candidate that would run upon these principals. Someone that has touted these issues since...forever. Someone that is believed and trusted...
Gee, if only...
Oh yeah, we did.
Face-palm, head-shake, sigh...
9
Thanks for this excellent article!
People need to read and heed this. It should be required reading in High Schools and Colleges.
The most recommended comments are also important to read.
Our future is at stake. See
https://www.legalreader.com/elections-for-the-people/
2
Neither Watergate nor the Financial Crisis were decisive watershed events clearing the collective unconsciousness of how we the people are cheated and wetted by the 'pee the people' 0.1%er crowd strangulating and systemically subverting our so-called 'free markets' and 'free democracies' and dominating our airwaves.
They were primordial, preceding, subterrestrial rumblings announcing the inevitable awakening of the many to the big fraud and betrayal by the few.
The consistent Sanders Message of Solidarity Overcoming Separation, Saving Our Souls, is the first revolutionary breakthrough of the collective unconsciousness, opening it up to insight into and awareness of what is actually going on. Obama's been an early bird who in part got the gift of the word, but seemed to lack a clear perception of the needed effective action 'swords'. Even Trump is an early sign, since to sway his campaign to victory he had to pose as worker-benign.
We got decades of lifetime service of hard economic work behind us, Tony Atkinson, Thomas Piketty, now taken to the next level by Saez, Zucman, et alia. Even Paul Krugman seems to come around.
We have decades of lifetime service of environmental activism behind us empowering us, from Rachel Carson to Bill McKibben.
We have decades of the new spirituality gaining ground behind us, still largely under the MSM radar, led by Neale Walsch, Eckhart Tolle, Deepak Chopra, Byron Katie, Safi Nidiaye.
There is no way trolls or money can stop us anymore.
8
It's generally easier to bamboozle people than to convince them they've been bamboozled, especially when the bamboozlers have more money than the rest of us could ever dream of, thanks in part to the tax cuts Trump gave them.
Dems need to finish what Bernie started and inspire the masses with a New New Deal, not convince them that they're stupid.
11
The only way to solve this problem in the short term is to have more foreign tourists in DC.
Why is lobbying legal? It isn't needed. These people -- who represent us, by the way -- should be tied up with discharging their constitutional duties, rather than collecting nice meals or bribes.
4
All lobbying needs to be outlawed, with citizen united's fall right behind...
2
My fervent hope is that someday a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress will have the guts to ban lobbyists from the marking up sessions and deal with legislation themselves with the help of their staffs.
ALEC and the presence of lobbyists in the room are appalling corruptions of the legislative precess and the legislators themselves. If the bills are too huge and complex, slow down, let the lobbyists make their case and then leave it to the legislators to mark up the bills, work out their differences and know what they are voting about.
There is something truly grotesque about elected officials turning over the jobs they swore to do to the money baggers. Why bother having a Congress to supposedly represent the people? They don't come even close to doing that!
7
More than lobbyists and weak politicians, this whole right wing venture has been coddled, and greedily set fire to by Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan. Without the constant media nonsense propogated by Fox news, Trump, and the weasles in the GOP would not be able to sustain themselves. Why in the world would we expect an Australian to want our best interests. I'd like to know more about their murky associations and why apart from money it is in their best interest to see America in turmoil.
3
"This may be where a candidate’s charisma — his or her ability to elicit committed followership — becomes indispensable."
If i wanted to vote on charisma and likeability, i'd be voting for either Cory Booker or Beto. But Booker is bought and paid for from top to bottom, and Beto at least votes like he is. So i guess i'll be voting for either that unlikeable shrill harpy Elizabeth Warren, the spoiler Bernie Sanders who (to his immense credit) isn't even a Democrat, or the dull as dirt Jeff Merkley (who?).
1
Thank gosh for the breath of fresh air which is Ocasio-Cortez. She will not be silenced.
4
I hope everyone heard the great news, his trusted fixer Michael Cohen will testify next month in open session before the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
I bet the unindicted felon in chief is already shaking in fear of what's coming his way.
Hopefully many others will follow Cohen's example, so the public can hear all the details of schemes and machinations of this loser, especially important for his devoted base.
1
"Skilled at co-opting liberal members of Congress...". Say what? How can you co-opt someone who's honest? If these so-called liberal members of congress get "Co-opted" then they are corrupt. Pretty simple and straightforward. No excuses. Either you do your job or you take bribes and don't do the job you were elected to do.
3
The Land of the Free? The Home of the Brave? Yeah, right!
"Income inequality and political polarization have become mutually reinforcing, creating the vicious circle that now manifests itself daily in the erosion of norms around civility and truth telling, the declining trust in political institutions, legislative gridlock and political dysfunction."
The TV in every car repair waiting room is tuned to Fox and Friends. In the diner. At the gym. And the Italian sub shop. People are watching Trump at the border - demonizing immigrants, lying, appealing to this racist - KKK, white supremacist, American Nazi Party - base, and to ordinary people who are infused with the Fox News "the other is bad" credo. It works. People eat it up like free doughnuts.
Now, from my point of view as a Democrat, the Democratic Party is starting to look more like the party of women, and of minorities - particularly the African American minority. Latinos? OK. We're on your side. Chinese, Japanese, and East Indians? Forget about it. They take care of themselves.
The problem with all this liberal, feminist, civil rights fervor, is that the economic issues - the income disparity that is at the root of much of the social malaise in the US - is kind of lost in the sauce. And political power is derived from getting elected and in this 50-50 polarized country, getting some normal ordinary people - who don't identify as oppressed minorities - to vote for you.
And I'm not sure if this has sunk in to the Democratic leadership.
4
“There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia.”
― Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan
Democrats? Progressives? ANYBODY?
What did the pundit say....."The United States has the best government money can buy."
2
MONEY....
But we all knew that Democracy is not for wimps....
…. and 'star-gazers', at the end of the day, need to try to keep it real (no more 'Never Hillary Bernie Bros) !
To the Frosh class in the House....
Heed Nancy ! She's a Superstar...
2
What a great article...well researched. All true! sadly. Many wealthy people feel such entitlement...but don't we all have to breathe the same air, drink the same water and eat similar foods we grow? Always puzzling! and yes, even the lobbyists.
At this moment, I would throw my chances in with, Michael Bloomberg...we must never give up the fight, but we do need to do something soon about out President, before we all go down the drain....YIKES...
3
One thing we need to do is not allow people & businesses to hide anonymously behind SHELL COMPANIES. LLC's that don't have to list anything other than a P.O. Box and one lawyer's name, who can say he can't disclose his clients. This is where all of Trump's money is. These were used by Enron. This is what all the Russian money laundering hides behind.
4
The infamous dark, powerful, and amoral lobbying established by Manafort and Stone lives on, and seems only to be growing more powerful in its management of US House and Senate members who accept legislation written by the Corporate and Foreign States’ lobbying entities.
1
Nothing new here. Same ole class warfare.
About 2500 years ago, Plato also worried about class warfare and really had no good answers to it.
And your answers are the same as we have heard from that time forward. Stay organized, stay smart, and find the right leaders.
Obviously, easier said than done. People cannot think straight; no logic or critical thinking taught in schools. The usual myths of civilizations -- religion; the great warrior; the great leader; the great founders; --do not help, but hinder progress. Fragmentation does more hindering: my race; my sexual orientation; my groups problems; my gender identity; my beliefs --- me, me me.
You said it all again sir, but how can we do it right? I'm not sure it can.
2
How about each week you follow a different member of Congress, switching between the parties each week, and document in detail all of their meetings with lobbyists? Surely their calendars are available under the Freedom of Information Act. Then they can be quizzed on just what they discussed with these lobbyists. Could make for some interesting reading and an awful lot of SUNSHINE - which these members of Congress will hate even more than the lobbyists. It's called journalism are you folks at the New York Times up to the challenge?
84
Superb, informative column that gets to the core of one of this country's biggest problems: inequality and the middle- and working-classes' willingness to side with the very political party that is doing them in and making inequality worse.
The other big problem is the urgent need to deal with climate change before we pass the tipping point. As with Edsall's analysis of inequality, it is the lobbying groups and big donors that spend their time and considerable money making sure to obstruct any laws and policy that deal constructively with climate change.
Same for affordable health care.
The very people who need to read this column probably won't. Ignorance is not bliss, especially in America!
1
"a cadre that must also be strong enough to do battle with the increasingly powerful moneyed class and its voracious lobbying elite."
Yes, a much more formidable challenge than the hapless GOP
2
Until we overturn Citizens United and other legislation that allows unlimited money in our elections, nothing will change. Time for publicly financed campaigns that only last six months and term limits. Oh, and I'd love the main stream media to actually cover what is happening in Washington. Not the gossip but actual legislation. One can only watch CSPAN so much in a day.
3
This is terrific reporting. Thank you Mr. Edsall, and thank you NY Times.
2
One solution is to pass legislation outlawing those formerly employed in any department of government from taking jobs with firms involved in lobbying for a period of 4-6 years after resignation, by which time the election cycle would be complete and their influence lost.
2
"...as well as the creation of a Select Committee on the Climate Crisis — a first step toward a “Green New Deal.”"
Pelosi's Select Committee is an attempt to derail the Green New Deal, a set of policies that, unlike previous Dem climate policies, actually promotes substantive and unequivocal action.
One of the criticisms of Pelosi's climate committee is that members are allowed to accept campaign donations from the oil industry - a clear conflict of interest designed to continue the Dems corporate-friendly climate policies.
This action alone, clearly demonstrates Pelosi's lack of sincerity when she speaks of removing big money from politics.
Then there is the fact that for eight years Pelosi has been talking of repealing Citizens United. Now that she's back in power, that talk has disappeared.
These new Justice Democrats like AOC are the only hope for serious action on climate change, inequality and other social justice issues.
5
Our corrupt political system keeps the truly smart people out of politics. If we want to get the meritorious people to serve as our representatives, we need to have elections that are publicly financed.
However, that is not going to happen as long as we have the corporations and the ultra wealthy maintain the status quo on campaign finances, and the Supreme Court sanctions such corruption.
The political system is rigged against ordinary citizens. In our anger, many lash out against proper allocation of nation's financial resources that will benefit them in the end.
2
However much harm they render to American political life, lobbyists aren't the chief source of what ails aforementioned. Instead, lobbying reflects myriad failings of American politics themselves.
By having fixed election dates every four years, America guarantees the following: It guarantees a primary focus on campaigning, not governance; it warrants decreased actual governance within a government's mandate; it provides for absurdly lengthy election campaigns that don't encourage intelligent discourse or debate, but an aptitude for raising money. Is it any wonder why American politics is so often devoid of substance?
Some express admiration for the separation of powers within America's political structure, on the basis that it inhibits a dictatorial impulse and fosters cooperation in theory. With Trump, however, this goes out the window, and reveals another failing in America's system of government that's pregnant with irony: America's revolt against the tyranny of the British crown only produced a system of government where impeaching an American president is more difficult than removing an Australian, British or Canadian Prime Minister. Considering how Trump is the primary source of America's current political dysfunction, the difficulty removing him from office buttresses his intransigence, and cancels out the emasculating effects the separation of powers is supposed to have on him.
1
It's worse than Mr. Edsall describes.
The problem is not just our legislators having to sell themselves for campaign funds. The larger problem is blackmail wielded by major lobbyists that they will fund opponents to drive non-compliant legislators from office. Our legislators know that if they offend certain lobbyists, the oligarchs those lobbyists represent will find opponents and fund those opponents heavily.
Technology is, at long last, providing some solutions to that problem. People can, with the internet and social media, mount their own campaigns, and can expose the money that's become integral to our political process. But, as we've learned, those tools can be used for good or for evil.
3
The Democrats can hardly be blameless for the empowerment of lobbyists. That is the core problem. Bi-partisanship is overrated at times, as in this case.
2
Common sense tells me that America is over, it will not work. Its just like the game of monopoly, in the end , one person wins. Money is the only thing of value.
4
As indicated, Democrats receive big donations, too.
The outcome?
Chuck Schumer has unwaveringly supported "carried interest".
Nary one serious Democratic legislative proposal about outrageous USA Medicare pharma prices (no favored nations clause?) has been offered in 20 years.
It's not "Nancy" who is facing lobbyist roadblocks. It's the middle class and poor.....with both parties culpable to varying degrees.
9
Henry,
That mensch in the rumpled suit has been trying for decades.
Democratic's burned/spurned him. Again.
Here is another attempt just a couple days ago.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-drugpricing-idUSKCN1P416L
3
To me, one of the biggest stories of this election is the number of candidates elected with an avalanche of small dollar donations and in many cases without accepting any PAC money. Yet it’s barely discussed in the media—this article has one of the longer mentions I’ve seen but buried that amazing story under the predictable one about top tier lobbying firms. If enough candidates can win with small donations for a few cycles, campaign finance law could actually change.
7
Great article, very educational, gridlock as a strategy to benefit lobbyists and their bosses. Though, tellingly, we did notice little gridlock when the tax break was going through. Pigs at the trough once again! We know this goes on, thanks for the details!
1
This article totally ignored the big green lobbyists. Environmental group like Green peace, Sierra clubs as well as big businesses like Tesla and renewable energy companies push through policies that are bad for the average American. For example subsidizing electric vehicles at $7500 per car which is more then the average person's car is worth (The average car in operation is 11.6 years old). These types of subsidies only benefit the rich.
Most environmentalists are rich people that have big plans for renewable energy and electric cars that ignore the working class who drive old cars, live in old buildings and often work in energy intensive industries.
4
The real solution to the problem of lobbyists is true
campaign finance reform, where candidates get public financing, so that they don't have to be beholden to lobbyists in the first place. That way, members of Congress could spend their time on legislating, not on fund raising. Public financing would also do away with the power of incumbent politicians to ward off challenges from women, minorities, and young people with new, more progressive ideas. Of course, public financing of Federal primary & election campaigns would be vigorously opposed by lobbyists. In addition, an accurate Federal Census, that doesn't intimidate people with a citizenship question,
would help to address the problem of lobbyists. The States need to address their role in the gerrymandering of election districts, so that a single party can't dominate primary & regular elections. To this end, the States need to also adopt public campaign financing in State legislative & executive campaigns. On the Federal level, Congress needs to restore the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court claimed was no longer necessary. Voter suppression is a problem nationwide. As to the Supreme Court, the Citizens' United ruling, which allows corporations unlimited campaign contributions under the ruse of free speech, contributes to the lobbying problem. A related issue is that of non-disclosure of campaign donors. Anonymity fuels lobbying.
1
There are two major leverage points for change nationally and internationally: inequality and demand for fossil fuels. Facilitate equality of opportunity, equality before the law, equal access to quality education, and progressive taxation and you get a more productive,fulfilled, and politically and civically involved populace. Divert demand for fossil fuels to healthier habits and renewable energy and you help reduce the pressure on climate change and bio-diversity decline. A third leverage point is ideology, but that's a much harder nut to crack, unfortunately.
2
While American students are taught that the USA is a constitutional republic at some point of their schooling, it seems that American adults are less educated about the oligarchic nature of their government. Many Canadian jurisdictions have laws prohibiting corporate and union donations to election campaigns, but could this ever be envisaged in America?; for Democrats themselves, doesn't recent memory of Hillary's servility to Wall Street undermine Democrat claims to sanctimony?
The degree to which money influences American politics is unknown in the rest of the world---and likely for the better. A pernicious symbiotic relationship has developed between money and America's political processes, from which the world must observe and recoil.
5
We always knew the big picture, and now we have the details.
Fewer and fewer people have their hands on the levers of power. The rest of us get to select the names of the puppets that they control but have diminishing control over the outcomes.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. I am the great and powerful Oz/"
3
When the single greatest priority of every elected politician in Washington and the states is reelection, older and newer mechanisms that support their campaigns will arise with the regularity of the sunrise. Without term limits (say, 4 terms for the House and 2 for the senate) lobbyists and other cynical destroyers of American democracy will always have the power to shape our political decision-making to favor their interests. Term limits, by design, should make careers in politics impossible. Without them we merely tinker with a system that does not work for the large majority of Americans, inequality grows and genuine reform is doomed.
1
Wasn’t the NAR against the tax cuts, since both state taxes and mortgage interest deductions were affected?
The real solution to the problem of lobbyist influence is true
campaign finance reform, where candidates get public financing, so that they don't have to be beholden to lobbyists in the first place. That way, members of Congress could spend their time on legislating in the interest of voters, not on fund raising. Such a system of public financing, while destroying the power of lobbyists, would also do away with the great power of incumbent politicians to ward off challenges from women, minorities, and young people with new, more progressive ideas. Of course,
public financing of Federal primary & election campaigns would be vigorously opposed by lobbyists. In addition to public financing of campaigns, an accurate Federal Census, that doesn't intimidate people with a citizenship question,
would also address the problem of lobbyist influence. Finally, the States need to address their role in the gerrymandering of election districts, so that a single party
can't dominate primary & regular election campaigns. To accomplish that, the States would need to themselves adopt public campaign financing in State legislative & executive campaigns. Also, on the Federal level,
Congress needs to restore the Voting Rights Act, which the
U. S. Supreme Court claimed was no longer necessary. Voter suppression is a very real problem nationwide.
1
A great and important article, Mr. Edsall. I only wish you had
published it before the House Democrats voted to re-elect Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.
Pelosi's main qualification for "leadership" appears to be "raises the
most money", having raised over $400 Million since 1987. And where did most of that $400 million come from? From the very same lobbyists you rail against in this article.
And in 2016 the Democrats had a "populist playbook and a presidential
candidate equipped to forcefully campaign on it, someone [with] ...
bravura, charisma, and bullheadedness" in Bernie Sanders. But the DNC had already annointed Hillary, and the rest is Trump history.
So who’s really blocking the door??
7
G.Janeiro,
DING! DING! DING!!!!
Winner!
Spot on.
3
As James Madison pointed out: "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance." If people don't want to educate themselves regarding the truth then they will be governed by those that don't have their best interests at heart.
1
The leadership cadre must be supported by an electorate that understands what is pictured in this article -- how ruthless, self-interested, untrustworthy, and mendacious large corporations (and other organizations) are. Since we do not know how to run an efficient economy without them, we have to elect and support a government that trusts them as little as sports umpires and referees trust the players. And we have to demand that our umpires and referees be obeyed and not argued with, pressured, or bribed by people who make much more money than they do -- and elect representatives who will take pride in backing them up rather than undercutting them (as is now the case). The idea that a congressman's job is to represent constituents against the government bureaucracy will destroy democracy and replace it with a corrupt oligarchy where influence trumps facts and values.
1
I disagree. It's not that this does a bad job of describing the current situation, but that it fails to ask how today's circumstances will initiate changes deleterious to the security of the upper class cohort. What's the creative destruction angle? This is an economic problem and economics is about many things but especially change. Today's rich live off profits from previous disruptive innovations. But they are commoditizing and before you know it many fortunes will evaporate replaced by the rich from the next disruption. The situation is far from hopeless. If you had asked in 1980 who the rich would be today, you would have likely missed the rise of the educated meritocracy and the tech intelligencia yet here we are. Tech's foundations are cracking and tomorrow's wealth will be based on tech but as different from tech as tech is from the Space Age that spawned it. Lobbyists are a problem but lack of foresight and creativity are bigger problems.
1
The best ROI (return on investment) for corporations and the rich is to invest in legislation. In the face of the profits, there's no other investment that even comes close.
As other commenters have pointed out, a few million to Congress can result in profits in the billions and trillions for an industry as a whole. Big Pharma, Big Health Care, Big Tech, I'm lookin' at you.
This is great as a term paper, but why not give us a list of the farms and industries that are funneling the most money into the corruption of our democratic process— and who receives what? That is information that we could do something with.
3
elb:
You're preaching to the educated and Democratic choir.
Any suggestions on how to reach trump's choir? Is it hopeless?
These closed minds seem to be the real wall trump has built.
Any good ideas out there?
One more article showing how Russia and China can point to the failures of American democracy. The entire presidential campaign ordeal has become a joke with way too much money spent on the selection process with too many corporate entities manipulating the process. Digital media has made it impossible for fair elections to occur . Our democracy is doomed.
The 1% who essentially control the fate of the country are where they are for several reasons, none the least of which are : they have a compulsive need to have and acquire "more", no matter what that means to anyone else,; they pursue their goals with energetic, determined, aggressive assertiveness; they are highly intelligent ( no matter what others would like to believe);they work together at least by playing off of each other; and perhaps most importantly, they are aided and abetted by a significant portion of the voting public who know not what they are doing. They direct both political parties in the Divided States and as such, THEY have had the laws written and implemented by Their elected political subordinates. Yes, there is much more to it than that, but at the core, both parties answer to THE MONEY.
Pelosi and Schumer sound well intentioned, but he in particular has always been a favorite of the NY financial industry. He and she will be a better choice than any living republican to help the MC but there are narrow parameters they have to work within, because they answer to the Money as well. Only another financial collapse Might spur a "progressive" movement with possibilities, but right now more Americans than not are doing just fine. Trump's stalwart followers are a decent measure of how much more
needs to happen for progressive change to occur. If they ever come to realize the've been financially duped, the Divided States might actually become United again.
1
@KB, I agree with much of what you say but legislators have two parallel responsibilities: 1) To the interests of the country at large, and 2) to the special interests of the people in their districts. If the legislators representing farm States are able to work to protect the interest of agricultural interests in their States, is it not also reasonable that legislators representing urban financial centers should be able to work to protect the interests of their own constituents?
1
We could try campaign finance limits instead. I hear Canada has a law where each party can only spend about 75 cents per voter on each candidate. The grand total averages less than $250,000 per campaign. That would be a start.
3
We need not fret over the power of lobbyists. Sure, they obstruct democracy and hinder fair commerce (they praise the free market and benefit from its control by them -- what sort of "free" is that?).
In the past the power of the wealthy to influence political decisions were no weaker than they are now. And yet labor legislation, regulations cleaning up the air and water and that protect our food have been passed.
Good journalism, investigative reporting, free expression through political discourse, art, and public opinion, along with the power of voting can win out over the short-term interests of the lobbyists.
Just VOTE and speak out!
Outstanding column, Mr. Edsall. Pressing though income inequality is, I'm afraid that at this time even that issue must be temporarily subordinated to arresting the destruction of the planet. The supervening urgency of climate change and environmental destruction must be the issue that unites us across ideological, racial, ethic, and generational lines, or there won't be any issues left to lobby legislators about.
2
Money is power be it in a marriage or government. Until it is removed from the electoral process the people’s wishes are just that wishes.
1
@Chris The election cycle must be shortened. Senators and House Reps both have staggered 4 year terms. Both have term limits - and a Rep cannot be a senator [and vice versa] until a gap of 8 years. All communications media must provide FREE air time to ALL candidates. If debates are necessary and there are 28 candidates break up into groups of, say 4, and do a round robin mix where each candidate is in a group with every other candidate at least once.
Commenters suggest that Europe’s success has to do with homogeneous populations. This is a politically driven oversimplification. Germany has large numbers of immigrants. Germany also has an industrial policy protecting manufacturing jobs, which is why their manufacturing sector is twice the size of ours relative to GDP. Germany has a university system that is virtually free. City University of New York, which used to be free, now costs more than $6000 a year in tuition alone. In France, Sweden, Germany, Spain, England, and and the rest of the industrialized world, that would be $1000 a year. All of Western Europe has national healthcare. Nobody worries about going bankrupt from cancer. Nobody dies because they can’t afford insulin. With education and healthcare, a population is more likely to assert its interests against economic elites. That’s not the case here, and with the spending of the Koch brothers, the Mercers, and their ilk, it never will be. The U.S. is a plutocracy ruled by an oligarchy. Let’s put it this way. In the United States 30% of the population goes to bed hungry every night. Nowhere in Europe is that the case. Americans have been propagandized by the Republican Party into their own self-destruction. The most disturbing part of that central truth is that nobody speaks it aloud, including the mainstream media. NBC no more speaks that truth than Fox. This Edsall piece is the exception to the rule. My feeling is, we’re doomed. Western Europe is not.
3
@ADN This happens here through a combination of the nefarious power of money and the ideology of "pull yourself by your bootstraps" which every American becomes indoctrinated into since birth and dictates that, in blaming the victim fashion, if you don't succeed it's your own fault. The myth of the "pioneer spirit" that reigned 200 and 300 years ago perdures! and most Americans buy into lock, stock and barrel!.
I never cease to be amazed at the ignorance and naivite of the general populace. Mention universal healthcare, or any other socially progressive desirable policies that benefit the population at large, and immediately Americans (even highly educated ones in my experience ) scream "Socialism" . Sad!
1
A timely and insightful reminder that money, lots of it, is at the rotten core of our political system. Given the growing inequality and a fiendishly sophisticated lobbying system, the consequent social tragedies are left to be detailed in brilliant books and op-ed pieces. Pessimism seems justified.
The simple and obvious solution is to make campaign contributions from these organizations, and all businesses and unions illegal. Only American citizens should be allowed to make campaign contributions, and only in small amounts. What we have now is legalized corruption.
6
A lot of the new Democrats are not taking corporate / lobbyists donations.
And I give what I can to as many of them as I can.
5
We are in an era where massive, fundamental changes in our traditional ways of doing business either will be made or the ways of life, principally for improvement both of and within our society, that we have known will disappear.
The rules and processes of Congress must be made more equitable, its power structures must be redistributed, all forms of gerrymandering must be eliminated, lobbying has become so specialized, powerful, and pervasive that the only effective solution is to eliminate the practice entirely, and our national elections need to be sanitized, made readily available to all citizens, and returned strictly to a one person, one vote basis, i.e. do away with the electoral college.
A complete overhaul of the myriad of mechanisms which have evolved to circumvent our historic democratic basis is the only way to ensure that the voices of minority parties always play a significant role in our system.
It’s amazing how cheaply legislators sell themselves. For a measly few million in lobbying, campaign funding and hiring former government officials, businesses buy themselves billions, even trillions in profits. It’s pathetic really.
145
@baseball55
How do you explain how politicians leave office much richer than when they were elected, and their families become very wealthy while they were in office.
5
Pelosi's agenda must be blocked!
4
Southern Boy,
Dude, you've got to pull the pin before you lob the grenade.
Wasted effort. Try again.
But you did get a chuckle out of me.
Where is your usual "Thank you"?!
1
Man, I sure hope Pelosi & Schumer know what they're doing - but that flat-footed, shared-podium address (sad !) Tuesday evening makes me wonder.
I am watching the spin evolve, and fear that Mr. Trump is making headway in making the shutdown all about "Democratic intransigence."
Where in the world are the capable progressive message-mavens, able to get the word out that this is about saying no to government-by-hostage taking ? Are they all tied up preparing late-night TV monologues ? Where are our resources ? Oh, for a muse of fire.
5
What an excellent and thorough autopsy of the rotting corpse that is the U.S. political system. It would be interesting to see how this system of legalized bribes has affected specific politicians (if indeed this sort of analysis is even possible). I'm especially thinking about self-proclaimed "liberals" such as Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and the centrist to end all centrists, Barak Obama. Obama's preference for Wall Street bankers and their friends to guide policy re. the big financial institutions and hedge funds is well known. Were sweet board positions at these companies after terms of office has ended promised in return for favorable treatment? Just ask Timothy Geithner . . .
3
We need to take money out of politics. PERIOD.
4
Did not Bernie Sanders make campaign finance a central issue? His campaign was historic for people-based finance.
But this paper ignored him or berated him. And continues in this vein now.
I find this to be such hypocrisy.
Make up your mind NYT.
9
kj,
Exactly!
It is nice to see all his ideas and issues being accepted now at least.
But once again, incremental, third-way, moderates are/were slow to the party.
Follow the money.
3
I’m curious how the most evolved democracies with the best outcomes for their citizens, the Northern European countries, handle these issues? Maybe that would be a good place to start looking for answers. Just don’t call it socialism.
320
The better examples are Germany and the Netherlands.
The Nordics struggle with diversity, ranging from inability to act out of fear of being the wrong kind of person (Sweden) to ugly cultural enforcements (Denmark e.g. no marriage without handshake).
Above mentioned countries have much better educated populations who have no problem electing a person smarter than themselves.
23
The Northern European countries are consistently ranked as least corrupt. I believe that derived from a citizenry that is not itself corrupt.
38
@Dave Until recently, the Northern European countries, have had little immigration. (G.B. , with it's higher rate of immigration from former colonies is the exception). They are small, homogeneous countries with a highly educated population. None of them has had quite the the religious infused high octane capitalism that we have experienced in the US. The complexities of governing a large, heterogeneous population keeps us in a continual state of unrest and makes it difficult to achieve consensus for any period of time.
32
HR1 is a perfect example of feel good legislation that does nothing to reduce the power of lobbyists, which the op-ed addresses. A 571 page fix for everything from voting rights to gerrymandering written by a member of Congress seeking name recognition in a crowded field of presidential candidates will not help the poor or middle class. Each of these issues should be an individual subject of legislation and not stuffed into an omnibus righting all the wrongs at one time bill. Considered individually, they’d be much less susceptible to watering down by lobbyists.
89
@Peter E Derry
Peter, you are mistaken. HR1 can only be a draft because there is no way it can become law under this GOP Senate and GOP president. The Dems are working on these things among themselves. HR1 is like basketball practice, not like a basketball game.
You make it sound as if anything the Democratic House did this season had any chance of becoming law. Please.
3
@Robert Pelosi's House wants the president and VP to put their assets into a blind trust and reveal ten years of IRS returns. Why doesn't she show the way by putting her assets into a blind trust and showing ten years of her tax returns?
@ebmem, I'm sure she would if she were running for President, or if by some strange twist of fate both Trump and Pence were unable to serve.
In fact, we all should – secrecy about money has more bad effects than good – certainly in regard to equal pay for equal work.
3
"The danger for Democrats is that intensifying public hostility to President Trump may hand them the White House in 2020 before they have fully cultivated a leadership cadre equipped to address the conflicts that have torn the party apart in the past.."
That is exactly what's going to happen! I have always said.. Put 100 Republicans in a room for an hour and task them to come up with a 5 point platform.
In 25 minutes- 100 Republicans exit with the same 5 points from 75 years ago.
Ask 100 Democrats to do the same and 2 hours later 25 Democrats exit with a 50 point platform- while 75 are still inside bandaging their war wounds.
36
@Aaron
Your letter sounds like a criticism of the Democrats, but I read it as praise. How simple it is for Republicans to continue to regurgitate objectives from the past while the Dems fight hard to fix a program for the future. How could the Dems not disagree on establishing a path forward into unknown territory? But Republicans find it easy to agree: Simply say no to it all.
1
@Jagadeesan
And yet, Pelosi was able to order her minions to vote for the law so they could see what was in it and Ryan was not able to order Republicans to do so.
3
Mark Twain said it best: "We have the best government that money can buy." Always have, always will, I'm afraid.
3
So all we have to do is convince politicians in both parties to bite the hands that feed them. Got it.
55
@Matt, meanwhile, the rest of us are doing the opposite. We'll just have to become the hand that feeds them, one way of gaining the upper hand.
1
@Matt
How about setting some limits on campaign TIME, and
campaign costs....i.e., legislated limits...
2
For H.R. 1, a critical thing is campaign finance reform. Ideally, this will provide a mechanism for eliminating campaign contributions from big-monied interests and their lobbyists, and replace them with a means enabling all citizens, whether rich or poor, to make equal-sized "contributions" from public funds to the candidate(s) of their choice.
27
@Mike My hope is that it gets rid of ALL campaign contributions and that campaigns become publicly financed. Every candidate gets the same amount to spend.
6
@Lib in Utah - How will that prevent newspapers, magazines, TV stations, YouTube uploaders, social media gabbers, etc, etc, from influencing the elections? Most people are more likely to be influenced by narratives and arguments that do not come directly from the candidates.
2
@Mike
In 2008, Hillary was able to get the FEC to silence Citizens United.
She expressed no interest in applying the same rule to unions, moneon.org, ACORN, Media Matters, Open Societies or any other left leaning organization.
Leftists were horrified when SCOTUS ruled that since they couldn't silence CU without simultaneously silencing the many other on-profit corporations, the cost to free speech outweighed the interests of a ten year old law.
Public funding is a non starter. Obama and McCain promised to live by the regulations of public funding of campaigns, and Obama reneged. Democrats will establish some rules and then ignore them while enforcing them against Republicans.
The symbiotic link between corporate lobbyists and income inequality explains why Ocasio-Cortez, the most outspoken advocate for income redistribution, is under such intense attack by conservatives. It also predicts the split between progressives and PayGo centrist Democrats with close ties to lobbyists will widen and possibly become antagonistic.
4
It has been argued (and held by the Supreme Court) that a portion of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law... respecting the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.") justifies the right to lobby. I do not understand how anything in this portion of the First Amendment may be used to sanction the bribery of our representatives in return for their vote.
3
@JerryV Of course, bribery is not protected by the first amendment, but what is bribery? Certainly the First Amendment protects the right to contribute to the campaigns of politicians you agree with. Where do you draw the line? Contributing to politicians because I think they will support programs I want (or oppose those I dislike) is part of the political process. Contributing in return for a promise of specific action would be bribery, but proving a quid pro quo is next to impossible and politicians and lobbyists know how to avoid getting caught in explicit bribery.
Disclosure requirements and limitations to campaigns will help. Reforms to Congressional procedures also help since they cut down on the power of individuals members of Congress to intervene to the benefit of individual contributors. The Democratic proposals will be helpful, and I am hopeful that some Republicans, wanting honest government, will also support them. Keep talking about, and pushing for, honest government and perhaps some meaningful progress will be made.
@JerryV - Well, if you can petition the government to change the law, why can't you hire someone to do it for you? That is a logical consequence.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that the government has no obligation to pay any attention to these requests, and can dump them in the trash if they want to.
Articles like this should cause Democrats to 'dial back' their expectations for the next 2 years.
1. You're up against lobbyists.
2. Senate is still Republican.
3. President will be either Trump or Pence.
Or am I missing something here?
5
@Kenneth Johnson
You're missing something. The Dems aren't up against lobbyists, they're every bit as bought and paid for by them as the Republicans. And none of them more than Nancy and Chuck. Save for maybe a very tiny handful of them.
2
This is an essential message for America. Unless rich interest groups can be prevented from using wealth to control government, we the people cannot have a government that works in our interest. Lobbying must be rigidly controlled and monitored, and election monies must be controlled and made equitable. Above all other political goals must be the cleansing of the governmental system.
8
@Michael McGuinness - What will stop them from buying up all the newspapers, magazines, and TV stations, and continuing on? You can't make that illegal.
Scariest article on U.S. politics I've ever read. Solving this situation appears to involve two impossible missions: 1) campaign finance reform; and 2) an educated, informed citizenry. I hope for the best, but am not holding my breath.
13
Congressmen can vote in line with the interests of their constituents, nothing prevents them from doing so. When they accept political contributions they are not making a contract; lobbyists do not buy votes. When representatives vote they make the best judgement they can based on all relevant expressed interests, even those you might not like--that's how political compromises are reached. You may not be pleased with the result, but that's how the legislative process works; that's how things get done. If you think your representative is selling you out, has been seduced by the forces of evil, and is lining his pockets at your expense, vote him out.
3
@Ronald B. Duke
Yes, they are not making a contract. However, Influence and control are manifested in different forms. 'He who pays the piper....'. It is naive to think that a $3 billion industry dedicated to 'bribing' politicians would not affect the body politic.
3
@Ronald B. Duke They are NOT BUYING under contract; just like you do not 'buy' a spouse. But infidelity is cause for concern in both cases.
Cynically one could argue that we should encourage our representatives to quit valuing their participation at such a paltry sum.
Doing the math:
$50,000,000/ 535 members of congress =~ $93,450 each.
Pushing that up by a factor of 1000 might halt some of this. Don't we all wish.
@Mac Some years ago, as a newbie to the system, i was at a political fundraising breakfast with the national chair of a major US political party. There were just 40 of us, at $250 each. For that total of $10K, the chair said "I will seek your advise and input when legislation of your interest comes up.' From there he went to another lunch fundraiser, by a VERY major interest group. They raised $25Million. WHAT do you think the fellow will do for that $25M? Definitely MORE than just seek input.
@Mac - If we had stuck with the founders' original intentions, and had one representative per 30,000 people, there would be 11,000 reps in the House. That would certainly make it much more difficult for lobbyists to influence legislation.
@Jonathan I agree.
Absent the lobbyists, how do you then get people to vote in their best interests?
Better education? If that's how you do it, we are doing a lousy job on that front.
4
@Martin
You can't possibly believe lobbyists give a toss about anybody's "best interests."
2
@Martin
All people believe they are voting in their best interest.
Just because I don't vote to take other people's hard earned money to pay for benefits for myself, doesn't mean I'm not voting in my best interest. I believe it is in everyone's best interest that we all reap what we sow, and we don't sow evenly.
I also believe our current government provides a lot of assistance to the elderly and less fortunate to help them work and live currently. Voting Republican when a Democrat promises to take money from those richer than me and send it my way may be voting against my monetary interests. However, not all of us believe that "monetary interests" are the same as our "best interests."
@Martin Flynn while close to power to decide, was a lobbyist for Turkey? He was going to sell a 'hostage' to his client. Same goes for others. They have no 'morals' other than the highest bidder.
1
Nancy and Mitch---deep in the pockets of many big dollar PACs and DC lobbyists---that's where the money is. That's where they take their orders.
7
Excellent points, Thomas Edsell. Wishing you and other writers would clarify what it means when you say "spent $ X on lobbying in any specific period. Does it mean salaries for the lobbyists? Expenses of lobbyists? Or, I shudder to wonder, payments made to fundraisers that every single federal elected members holds, the more frequently the better for them personally.
4
This is a fascinating view of a small space/time observation that kind of argues against our current regression to an almost religious "liberal"/"conservative" paradigm. It seems more like a glimpse away form the trees of short term propagandist battles (abortion, gay rights, guns, identity and even inequality) to the forest of perpetual power by a wealth / privilege elite paradigm, or even genetic predisposition. The human race has had this structure for all recorded history. Humans might be able to form a new paradigm (the meek shall inherit the earth, or it is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than a camel to pass though the eye of a needle) but the energy needed for this reaction has only occurred a few times in history. Thomas Pickety has opined that it is economic factors, perhaps, but perhaps only partially correct.
3
How is it that lobbying in the halls of Congress, activities we would otherwise call bribery and coercion, is legal? Something else the Dems need to fix.
9
@CEC
The problem with lobbying, as far as I can tell, is that it makes sense in theory.
In theory, groups of people with similar interests or concerns pooling resources to send an advocate to DC to make a case for their preferences or educate lawmakers seems like a good idea.
@Shirley0401, Educating lawmakers is one thing; buying them with cash payments is quite another.
1
You are now the country Thomas Jefferson warned you not to become. You have traded your birthright for a mess of potage.
Faustian bargains usually don't end well.
Here in Canada we await the ratification of the new and improved Nafta and continue to thrive. Meanwhile we look to Europe and Asia as a substitute to our dependent relationship with the USA.
I suspect with TPP the next decade will see our trading partnership with Mexico will be more important than our relationship with the USA through both Nafta and the TPP. We are by necessity a trading nation and Ontario's flirtation with American style populism is turning out to be a disaster.
I have for over a decade said there is no middle ground in America's polarization it is a theological and philosophical schism which will not be fixed by politics.
I will continue to point out that William Jennings Bryan's 1996 coalition of Christian fundamentalists and democratic socialists turned into today's GOP and that Bryan's religious fundamentalists turned into the intolerant right wing's xenophobia, greed and hatred for other's beliefs and morality.
I am 70 and was brought up on science and the scientific method. I remember my reaction to Inherit the Wind and it is only now that I recognize that William Jennings Bryan's politics are so close to my own and it is our theology that is where we completely differ and there is no halfway between dogma and empiricism.
4
@Montreal Moe
Canada may supposedly "look to Europe and Asia as a substitute" to the U.S. but even the Liberal government of progressive heartthrob Prime Minister Trudeau continues to push oil exports from the ecological disaster of the Alberta tar sands to the American markets.
@Peter
Our newspapers today all have pictures of our Prime Minister in British Columbia advocating for a trans mountain pipeline to get our oil to the Orient.
The two most Western Province are not Liberal country and the Prime Minister must step softly. Alberta's largest population claims a US origin and Alberta doesn't really care where it ends up as long as it can keep on pumping.
1
@Peter
By the way our provinces are powerful enough to secede from our confederation and both Alberta and British Columbia have democratic socialist governments with the environmentalists a large component of their bases. The problem of governing is you represent all your citizens and selling oil is far more important to Albertans than it is to British Columbians.
1
The first step to taking the money out of US politics is to make an effort to institute compulsory voting ala Australia. You can't buy everyone...lessening the impact of the lobbyist/special interest dollars. It also engenders community/civic responsibility. Eventually (hopefully) we move to more representative governance. Winning is going to be very difficult without congressional turnover and a fully engaged electorate.
Also, I commend you for noting the extent to which the Dems are sending conflicting and contradictory messages to citizens. This idea is abundantly clear with immigration policy. Dem can't speak honestly (or constructively) about this issue for fear of losing voters. That sanctuary cities are part of the Dem tent, unless these actions are framed as acts of civil disobedience (they are not), diminishes the credibility of law in society…and the Dems as a political party of laws. If Dems want to be respected, they need to condemn these actions in conjunction with real solutions to this problem….national id, increased resources for processing those seeking entry (or here) in the US, and a major mea culpa to low income workers who have lost wage growth to immigrants (illegal or otherwise).
Ultimately, the contradictory messages and conflicting behaviors make the Dems a party without a platform…which is a pretty poor position when you are trying to sway the minds of voters.
2
@JL1951
When every politician has, intact, his own brain, and uses it, you're going to have variations on every issue. The republican party is filet mignon - the democratic party is stew.
every politician has, intact, his own brain, and uses it, you're going to have fluctuating
1
Time for the Democratically-controlled House to outlaw lobbying.
4
@Christy
The Democratically-controlled House has no authority to enact, or outlaw anything.
1
@Christy Outlaw? Perhaps, but certainly making a condition of running for office a promise not to work for any lobbyist group for a certain time after leaving. Same could be asserted for staffers, too.
4
@Christy
This might actually happen, since there's no way it would ever actually become law.
A nice gesture for the people who vote for them, with no actual chance it could pass and harm the interests of the corps and top 10%ers they actually see as their only real constituency.
1
“The upper stratum of the Washington lobbying community often exercises de facto veto power over the legislative process, dominating congressional policymaking, funneling campaign money to both parties and offering lucrative employment to retiring and defeated members of the House and Senate.”
This is the problem Sen. Warren, Sen. Sanders and many progressives are running against. But since $ Still often determines who wins races it is difficult to change this.
Thanks for bringing attention to this issue. Our democracy is at stake.
6
@Rodin's Muse, I admire Warren and Sanders but candidates handicap themselves when they bring a pea-shooter to a gun fight.
1
La Raja & Schaffner make much sense in their argument against partisan gridlock. Ignoring offshoring & automation & their effect on unskilled & semiskilled labor, with the constant cries from pundits & academia to educate that sector, while bipartisan saber rattling with the main beneficiary of those lost jobs accelerates.
Supposed environmental concerns are swept under the rug as lost industry continues to concentrate overseas making for a feel good, guilt free consumerism here in the USA with greenhouse gases spewed into the atmosphere on other continents.
Demos have to come to grips with this reality or risk losing the electoral college once again.
1
Can we please, please stop using the term "redistribution"? It is a misnomer that conservatives use to frame the terms of the debate, making it sound as if the government is simply taking money from the productive rich and redistributing it to the undeserving poor.
Fact is, we have an unfair system that favors the wealthy--whose income is largely comprised of capital gains and dividends--with a low tax rate of 20%, while most "earned income" (actual work) is taxed at almost twice that level. If anything, we now redistribute from the middle class to the rich.
While we're at it, let's quit using the term "entitlements" which sounds like the lazy poor collect free benefits because they feel "entitled." Social Security and Medicare are social insurance programs, not entitlements.
In parallel, the Democratic party needs to evolve. Dems have been complicit in building the current system, starting with Bill Clinton's slashing taxes on capital gains and dividends, and continuing with the current fashion of Identity Politics. Dems chose Hillary "break the glass ceiling" over Bernie "fight income inequality" and lost to Trump. This time, maybe we can choose someone like Elizabeth Warren who might have broader appeal.
Personally, I'd prefer to see Identity Politics simply go away, because its major effect is to alienate men ("the Patriarchy" as all men are now painted) and white folks (automatically guilty of "white privilege" and "implicit bias").
39
@Unconventional Liberal
While we're at it, you should quit using the term "identity politics"? It was invented to be used to enrage white men. I personally have never met anyone who endorses it.
The Roman empire which at its peak had unparalleled and unlimited power ultimately collapsed becaue the interests of the plutocratic aristocracy and the "plebs", i.e. the citizenship comprised of the rest diverged too much. The same dynamic may be the beginning of the end of the United States as we know them today. The inequality in wealth, influence, and "fortune"may become simply too big to be tolerable by the plurality of Americans. And therefore it may well be that the lobbyists trying to even further expand the priviledges of the plutocratic aristocracy may indeed expedite their demise.
5
Trump makes a huge issue on our “border crisis” as our govt shuts down?
But our true border crisis is the destruction of any walls between big money donors, lobbyists and our politics. The flow to be stopped is that of special interest money in elections. The harm to our democracy is well documented in our daily lives.
The high barrier we need to erect is the one the Supreme Court tore down in the Citizens United decision---dismantling limits on big money. Without that sensible barrier, special interest money floods in, with armies of lobbyists and drowns out the voice of the citizen majority.
A strong campaign finance wall would restore the American credo---"representation for our taxation." The American colonies overthrew the Mad King George. Now we have to free ourselves from Mad King Trump and our domestic colonizers, who legally send our jobs overseas, expropriate our nation’s resources, and leave us to compete for crumbs.
Build the political wall we need using public funding for elections and limits on private money, as other democracies do.
With a wall between money and politics, we’ll get candidates with sense of public duty, not chosen, subsidized and marketed to voters by big money.
Good luck to Pelosi. But she's a fund raiser--- both parties compete for money.
Ex Pres Jimmy Carter has stated the US veers toward oligarchy, since it takes so many millions to run for any office. It's time our news media discussed Carter's warning.
18
@Meredith
And Eisenhower warned of the Military Industrial Complex.
7
It's amazing how cheaply US politicians can be bought off. It's a great investment for the big corporations: funnel a few dollars to politician X and get a no bid contract, a tax break, a regulation abolished, a monopoly, etc. It comes to trillions of dollars in profit at taxpayers expense. For chump change.
6
@SF
The combined S&P 500 represents 2/3 rds of Americas GDP, grosses about $13 trillion, and made about $1 trillion. that is less than 8% profit. Where are the trillions of dollars of profits being lost? The top 3% of taxpayers pay over half of income taxes received. The lower income 50% pay 2.8%. That is chump change.
2
@Jay
What is your point? If 60% of national wealth is controlled by the top 3% shouldn't they pay 60% or more of income taxes?
3
@Jay So, just how much tax should a single mom of 2 making 26,000 pay?
1
"the Washington lobbying community ... exercises de facto veto power ...funneling campaign money to both parties and offering lucrative employment to retiring and defeated members of the House and Senate" --provided they collude (=play ball).
The lobbyist's clients are called "stakeholders"--as if the general public isn't one; as if only moneyball matters. The lobby collective is a de-facto Third House.
And this form of government is known as Corporatism. It's a form of Feudalism--moneylords updating landlords; politicians updating their vassal knights jousting for tips and party favors. Fascism merely adds a racist element.
This is the real deep state--elections are camouflage--smoke and mirrors--and has been de facto since the Robber Barons.
See Chrystia Freeland's (Canada's foreign minister) "Plutocracy."
7
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
It's been nearly a century since then. I am currently impressed with the organizational power of Democrats and the quality of people coming up to say, I'm ready.
We have the ready rank and file. We have the leaders. And when all of the GOP and ALEC dirty trinks are swept away--the gerrymandering, the ballot purges, the one-sided inadequacy of polling places and more--then we can see true Democratic principles in power.
And probably true Democratic infighting too. Both parties have a variety of factions, always have, always will.
1
Democrats need an equivalent of "the Norquist pledge" to govern for the common man that will encourage both economic and community ambition in the populace (i.e., educate the "the people" out of the "why bother" syndrome).
This will require German-style self reflection and correction that may first appear "racist," but actually reflects "ambition mentoring." Some Democratic skins need toughening up to preclude emotional reactions that are not productive (Fox News relies on emotional immaturity, the Democrats must exude maturity as the adults in the room).
History will treat the "post Citizen's United period" as the one of the greatest low points in US-style democracy. Unfortunately for us, we are only at the beginning of that period.
I'm not the perfect example to impart economic knowledge, but if a less well-off neighbor came to me and asked for advice to achieve a similar economic status, I would see it as a privilege to mentor or at least share my life story that could be used by their children.
It has to start somewhere and our current situation indicates it needs to start now, or this is going to be one long period.
3
Washington, D.C – “It is a place that lives on the legions of lobbyists and lawyers who knock on the doors of government.”
Add – bearing gifts of personal value - money, re-election assistance, connections for high six-figure post government employment, future book purchases, future speaking engagements, etc., etc.
Who benefits – the Elected Politician, an independent contractor entrepreneur, running his or her political business and narrow special interest.
Who’s adversely impacted – hundreds of thousands of federal workers, their supply chain, and the rest of US! Who lobby for US? - No one!
We must find a way to hold self-interested and self-enriching Elected Politicians, government officials, their staffers and operatives from both parties personally and financially liable, responsible and accountable for the lies and half-truths they have told US, their gross mismanagement of our county, our $22 T and growing national debt (106% of GDP), and our $80 T in future, unfunded liabilities they forced on US jeopardizing our economic and national security, while benefiting themselves, their staffers, their party and special interest donors.
3
If we look at our president's actions through one particular lens--the one that says he is an agent working on behalf of Vladimir Putin--then everything Trump has done makes perfect sense.
Who wants division among Americans?
Who wants the American economy to fail?
Who profits when America denigrates international alliances?
Who benefits when the American president casts doubt on certainties like truth, evidence, and facts?
Who gains when American journalists are called "the enemy of the people"?
The answer in every case is Vladimir Putin.
The cold truth will eventually come out. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but maybe in yours.
It may be that the same case can be made for Republicans in Congress. Why else are they behaving like cowards while our nation is being destroyed? The only question I still have is why Trump and his lackeys are following Putin's orders. Is it because of kompromat or for their own greed?
4
@TinyBlueDot
It's because of both. 60% greed, 40% kompromat.
Thank goodness.
Pelosi has the moral high ground here.
There are no lobbyists working with the Democrats.
2
In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined.
The top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs of $465,626 and above) earned 20.58 percent of all AGI in 2014, but paid 39.48 percent of all federal income taxes.
The top 10% of earners pay 70.88% of all taxes.
-taxfoundation.org
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/
When you already pay 90% of the taxes, of course any tax cut is going to go towards the wealthy. The notion that the rich should pay more never ends, and the left will always want more.
@Adam
"When you already pay 90% of the taxes, of course any tax cut is going to go towards the wealthy."
This statement is clearly incorrect. Tax cuts can be structured in innumerable ways, including ones which give a disproportionate benefit to the middle class. Trump and the Republicans chose not to do that, but rather to disproportionately advantage the very rich. Pure greed and class warfare. By the way, focusing on federal taxes conveniently ignores all the state income taxes and sales taxes paid by the middle class, not to mention the highly regressive federal wage tax.
6
@bluebob
We could eliminate taxes completely on the bottom 50% of the income earners and still have 97% of the tax revenue.
Only keep taxes on the top 25% of earners and you have 87% of all tax revenue.
The bottom 75% of earners pay about 15% of the taxes, and it's not that different at the state level.
My point is that people who make more money pay all the taxes disproportionately already. The idea that cutting taxes on the middle class matters at all is just not well informed. They pay very little to begin with.
I get the feeling that even if the top 10% was paying all the taxes everyone here would still be upset because the top earners would still have grossly way more money (which is the real complaint -jealousy, not that they have too low of tax rates). The 1% are clearly paying more than their "fair share" already.
Everyday you meet someone from the 1% you should thank them for paying for the government you love.
Lobbyists have bribe money and threats, but that's it. Any politician can just say No. All that is missing is integrity.
6
The United States has become a corporate fascist state. The ultimate proof is the placing of Donald Trump in the white House through corrupt election practices financed by the Kochs, Adelsons, Mercers and their kind.
Until we get big money out of politics the US will remain a corporate fascist state. This requires a getting huge voter turnout to overcome all the systematic voter suppression practices favoring right wing Republicans that Big Money has financed.
3
When a good portion of our populace would rather see a union busted up so that their union shop neighbors make as little as they do; instead of joining that union and getting a better pay scale it makes me think this democracy is beyond help.
That same portion of our populace has voted for republicans who say they are going to outlaw abortions instead of creating the opportunities for their regions to grow and succeed. These are the people who voted for the fake prophet that now bespoils our White House.
Our democracy is teetering on the brink of a full scale slide into autocrat and the current republican party is very much in step with that outcome.
8
One of the most important points of Edall's astute article is that "as the gulf between rich and poor widens, voters become increasingly mean spirited & hostile to the welfare state, progressive taxation and regulations designed to protect consumers, workers and the environment."
This malignant spiral is deliberately pushed by the Republicans by the exploitation of wedge issues, & all their other cunning divide & conquer tactics they have so successfully used to con gullible, envious & angry voters into voting against their own best interests.
Edsall talks about the need for Democrats to get their act together, but neglects to mention the vital importance of educating such voters to the fact that they are being used; that as a result of their misdirected anger at liberals & government & voting for charlatans, they are perpetuating a government that continually betrays them, & thus are unwittingly causing their own anger.
It's essential that the liberal media not just preach to the choir, but endeavor to find a way to reach out, connect with, & help open the eyes of those who know not what they are doing—not only to themselves. For if they can just get beyond the handful of wedge issues used to blind them, they would see that the vast majority of all Americans, red & blue state alike, share the same basic concerns & needs, ones much more important in terms of our daily lives, & that as long as we allow ourselves to be divided, we will all remain prey to the powers that be!
3
"three major business groups — the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Realtors — invested over $50 million in lobbying to win passage of the trillion dollar Trump tax cut." Know thy enemies. Don't take a nickel or one suggestion from anyone representing these groups. Hold tough dems! Americans have your back!
5
Clearly, a navy of Search & Recover is appropriate for these "lost" Americans. But, naming names? Distasteful to our decorum of American values.
PERHAPS, though, "Team First Tier" or "Club Top Shelf" or "Whatever" self-annointed moniker floats their yacht is a vessel in trouble. Arising from a poor condition, a condition of ZERO HUMILITY. Perhaps, each's sense of entitlement fuels the king-of-the-jungle provocations upon democratic fair play - and is paired - with an iceberg, somewhere on each's horizon.
"Drutman, Grossmann and LaPira write.. that the first tier lobbying organizations are analogous to the current generation of very wealthy families who now pay for every conceivable tutor so that their children can be advantaged in applying to elite prep schools and colleges.."
That makes the "children", ie lobbyists, seem groomed to legislate well. But, in actuality, parents pay endowments to Harvard, so it is "Jareds" who roll-out the lobbyists' agendas.
Lobbyist for wealthy and powerful corporations and individuals have a choke hold on congress able to reward congressional members for following their wishes and punish those who defy them. Much like ALEC funded by the Koch bros and allies would write the laws for state legislatures then support those candidates who follow their instructions or finance the primaries of their opponents if they fail to follow them. The rich use the new generated wealth to further their interests and if Adelson in Las Vegas wants the embassy moved to Jerusalem the GOP complies. Congress is a fully owned entity by wealthy interests enforced by deep pocketed lobbying firms possible since Citizens United getting worse with Russian funds passing thru the NRA to back Trump , Putin's president of choice.
We need election finance reform.
14
I set aside a modest amount each month to donate to state and national campaigns and causes.
Not much -- 10, 15 or 20 a pop. Maybe $250-300 total per month.
It amazes me that over $1 billion was raised from people like me.
We are powerful together. Let's not lose hope.
14
How can a dysfunctional society caught in a downward spiral ever be good for business in the medium and long-term? These lobbyists should open their eyes to a broader perspective and go back to a proper school.
6
The idea of an honest politician who is well informed is a fallacy. Many of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Donald Trump’s supporters reasons for mobilizing stems from two linked fears, A.O.C.’s base’s fear of being taken advantage of and Donald Trump’s supporter’s fear of under producing for lack of opportunities. Either politician won't point out the weakest and counterproductive points of their policies for fear of reprisal from their respective base. These omissions and denials allow lobbyists to have more influence in our political system. Without the influence of lobbyists, if I ran for public office, I wouldn't go after that which is perfect, knowing that no such thing is found among men; but I seek that human constitution which is attended with the least, or the most pardonable inconveniences.Why doesn't anyone take my approach? What is it that I don't see?
We need more adult minded people to stand up. Instead of standing on the sidelines waiting for solutions to drop from the sky, I'm hoping we listen, think and hopefully unite. Suppose all NY Times readers realize my comment has a monetary value; how do I collect from all those people? We all can win if we see money for what it really is, a social construct that promotes exchange through trust. To put it more positively, I wouldn't need to run for public office since the sole purpose comment is to promote honesty, transparency and constructive critique from different groups and readers.
Thank you for trying to analyze, as thoroughly as is possible, a complex issue gnawing at us for a long time, worsening by the day, and seemingly a Gordian knot to resolve: Inequality's status quo. Those, powerful enough to want to maintain their privileges intact, may fight 'tooth and nail' any attempt to distribute the economic pie more equitably. And that may boomerang and make this capitalistic system vulnerable to the inevitable, a cry for social justice...that may be picked up by democrats truly intent to see that become reality. It's about time.
6
I find this piece baffling. Separate and apart from any lobbyist influence, if the legislation you claim is being blocked by lobbyists will not be taken up by the Senate anyway -- what difference does it make. The values and philosophies of the Senate majority are quite different from the newbies in the House.
As a member of the 1% so-called elite, let me give you my perspective. Democracy is the best political system available, but only to the extent it is properly limited and controlled. The framers realized this, and smartly wrote an electoral college, the Senate and various checks and balances into the Constitution, in part because they did not trust the masses to govern wisely. There is nothing easier, and scarier and more destabilizing for those who have earned and staved, than masses of people voting themselves your wealth. Why wouldn't they? Those who have achieved will always be less numerically those who have not. To me lobbyists serve as yet another useful governor on raw democracy, ensuring that radical redistributionist policies are dead in the water. To them, I say thank you!
3
@DRS There would be no "checks and balances" if all three branches end up working for the "1% so-called elite." Deep-pocketed lobbyists are working hard to ensure that we are never too far from that un-checked and un-balanced state of pseudo-democracy.
5
@DRS When democracy doesn't work in their favor, the masses dispense with it. Remember the Russian and Chinese revolutions? The poorly governed masses took matters into their own hands and the 1% "so-called elite" lost it all. In order to ensure that doesn't happen, checks and balances need to be put on the wealthy. The creation of the Senate or Electoral College have nothing to do with this. I would have thought that being in the 1% would give you a "so-called elite" education.....
5
The wealthy of this country are wealthy in part because of their own efforts and in part because of the infrastructure (roads, utilities, public schools and universities, courts, military, etc.) that we all pay for. Public infrastructure coupled with the rule of law allows you to not only acquire your wealth, but also to keep it. It also allows you to walk down the street without armed guards and not worry about being shaken down by corrupt police, politicians, and judges (just ask some of your wealthy counterparts in Mexico how they have to live).
I would rather pay a little more in taxes, like a majority of well to do Californian’s did a few years ago, and be able to walk down a city street without guards or have to live in a walled and guarded compound. You should worry more about income inequality and the inability of an average Joe working full time and not being able to support a family. This is going to impact you someday if things get much worse here. Unless, of course, you move to New Zeeland, Denmark, or Sweden. No - probably bad idea - they are high tax countries without lobbyists.
2
Truly fixing the problem would probably require changing the 1st Amendment, updating it for the age of mass media. Paid political ads on television, radio, or similar media should be banned within 1 month of an election, along with a reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. All televised debates need to be organized by a non-partisan commission, and open to all candidates who meet the requirements to be on the ballot. And if a candidate decides to skip a debate, his opponent then gets to use the free air time to explain his positions unopposed. Campaign contributions larger than $100 should be recognized as the bribes they are, and made illegal. If candidates are granted free air time in the form of debates, and their opponents can't outspend them on unchallenged non-debate air time due to the aforementioned restrictions, large donations should be unnecessary anyway. And all lobbying needs to be open to the public and occur in a public building. No private dinners or golf outings. Everything on the record.
4
@crankyoldman - This would be of little use in modern society. A teenager who can't even vote can film a political ad on his smartphone, and upload it to YouTube - at no cost whatsoever to himself. If his piece is good, he might get millions of views!
1
Thanks for your usual well researched and informative article.
You put much emphasis on income inequality harming our political process.
Our political class regardless of party has decided to put our blue collar workers in direct competition with illegal immigrants and low wage workers in other countries. This resulted in income inequality and unaccountable multinational corporations.
Now you want to use that inequality as an excuse to increase the size and scope of government involvement in our economy.
I'm not buying it. I'll support our president unless a sane person comes along who thinks this situation is insane and states it clearly.
1
Wouldn’t it be nice if our politicians worked for the 99% rather than the .01%?
16
This informative collumn nicely defines the scope and power of the plutocracy. The old aristocracy based on blood, breeding, and landed wealth that the Founders feared in the eighteenth century has now been replaced by a political oligarchy of corporations and individual wealth based strictly on Marx’s definition of the capitalist class.
John Adams and James Madison realized very early that political power in the American republic could either be vested in the masses or in the wealthy. They hoped that the electoral college of wealthy men that elected the president and the Senate originally elected by wealthy state legislators would effectively check the power of the citizen electorate based entirely on their numeric majority.
The Founders’ constitution strengthened by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes clever notion in the Gilded Age that corporations are people has secured the plutocrats’ eternal political hegemony in American politics. Once political contributions became constitutionally protected their victory was complete.
Can crowd sourced “fundme” political fund raising compete with the advantage the Founders gave to the monied class? If not, then a political future of populist wannabe autocrats such as Mr. Trump is guaranteed.
When the constitution picks the unscrupulous winners in political contests between social classes, regions, or any other societal elements , then , like plutocrats these elements will also find a way around the constitution.
6
"According to Bloomberg, three major business groups... invested over $50 million in lobbying to win passage of the trillion-dollar Trump tax cut."
It's always amazed me, even as someone who's written about public affairs for over 40 years, that you can buy our government so cheaply - and that there hasn't been an effective counter-move to blunt that imbalance.
Let's do the math: $50 million in lobbying to gain $1 trillion in tax cuts. That's 1/20,000th the cost of the benefit gained (assuming it's exactly $1 trillion).
When it costs that little for a small minority to privilege its interests it's fair to ask if democracy actually, in point of fact, is a proper definition for America's governing system.
p.s. - When I recently proposed to a prominent business journalist that we delve more deeply into just how much more wealthy the very rich are than most Americans - because Americans don't come close to recognizing the size of the gap, and thus to addressing it - the offer was rebuffed, annoyingly, because "Even if there is some emotional push to stories, it can't be too familiar and we'd rather not be stoking outrage as our driver. We're looking for wonder at discovery."
Note to that journalist: The extent of this gap is by no means too familiar - that's the essence of a problem journalists are supposed to address - and you infantilize your audience if you think it needs 'wonder at discovery' to act. This is not a game show - it's how we order society.
41
A friend of mine was working on a super yacht and invited me for a tour. While on the deck of the yacht I could overhear people on the dock ogling the yacht and guessing what it cost. If one of them suggested five million dollars the others would go “wow, really that much?”. The boat cost $80,000,000! They had no idea.
Each super each costs as much as a it costs to build a school. A big yacht, a big school, a small one is a small school. And each year they cost as much to run as it would cost to run that school.
It always amazed me that the public seems to prefer that we have several thousand super yachts (that are typically used a few weeks a year) instead of several thousand school.
NowI know why!
They public simply don’t know...
Why doesn’t the media tell them?
16
Something we didn't see mentioned in this excellent compendium of what 'Chuck and Nancy' are up against, is the fact that so many lobbying firms now are completely, or partially owned by mainstream Madison Avenue firms or other media concerns, so that the shapers/framers of the media have lobbying clients who are paying them to get legislators to vote a certain way, and enact certain legislation.
Media conglomerates should not be allowed to hold interests - nor outright own - lobbying firms; it's hard to imagine a bigger conflict of interest:
https://www.thenation.com/article/shadow-lobbying-complex/
30
We used to have institutions that mixed different neighborhoods and income groups that would give a sense of humanity to those not like us. But how many elites are in the Army today, and how many parents go to PTA meetings? We have sorted ourselves into enclaves. Demonization will lead to no good.
5
It is apparent to anyone who looks at the curves of income and especially wealth distribution in our nation today versus say 1955 that the trend is not sustainable. The issue is how will it change: by fundamental policy changes, or , God forbid, by the destabilization of American society.
7
@Richard Williams MD
Especially as there are a lot of guns out there.
Nothing will save the republic other than a thorough rethinking of how we let capitalism operate and the plutocratic control of government by corporations and the rich.
The incremental, centrist, moderate kinds of proposals put forth by political scientists and the professional commentariat like Mr. Edsall amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
11
“Study after study shows that as the gulf between rich and poor widens, voters become increasingly mean spirited and hostile to the welfare state, progressive taxation and regulations designed to protect consumers, workers and the environment.”
It would be interesting to take the data points collected in the above noted studies and overlay this graph on a graph that shows, over a 50 year period beginning from 1965, the respective network and cable news audiences. I would bet the deed to my home that opinions on progressive ideas and concern for society as a whole began their downward slide inversely proportional to the rise of Roger Ailes’ US version of TASS, aka the Orwellian misnomered “Fair and Balanced” news network.
44
@Bridget Thomas.....good point about FOX News. The head of CNN described FOX as the American Tass, referring to the Russian news agency.
FOX News has developed into the state run media of the GOP as that party has dominated our law makers and the S. Court.
It was in the 1990s that Pres Bill Clinton and the GOP passed the Telecommunications Act that repealed anti monopoly laws for media, passed in the 1930s. FOX then was able to grow across the nation.
FOX might not have become so big and influential if Dem Clinton had instead opposed the GOP in the 90s, and stood firm against media monopoly. Then maybe FOX wouldn't be Trump's advisors today.
There are also other big media monopolies, but at least they try to cover the news, they don't put out daily lies, and obviously ignore stories that might not fit their views, like FOX does every day.
4
@Bridget Thomas - Amen! i still don't understand why flag-draped Americans listen to foreign-backed news and vitamin salesmen on the radio. I guess emotional immaturity makes them easy pickings.
2
Thanks for covering this. I wish there was an article about this in EVERY issue. Write about this underbelly. Every WEEK!!!! This whole side of politics needs more light. Enough about Trump himself. Even i am sick of reading about him. Where did he come from. Do a profile of a lobby firm, lobbyist, rich person donor. EVERY WEEK!!!!!
65
@Katie....that's right---instead of occasional, the lobbying topic should be discussed constantly in the Times and other media, and related in concrete terms to our many national problems, and who is causing and prolonging those problems.
In fact there should be columnist who writes about this all the time.
Same with Edsel's column a few weeks ago on campaign finance. That's another rare topic in the media, except for the horserace of who is raising the most money. Nothing on how it's destroying our democracy.
26
@Katie
Hear hear!!
4
One of the most important points of Edall's astute article is that "as the gulf between rich and poor widens, voters become increasingly mean spirited and hostile to the welfare state, progressive taxation and regulations designed to protect consumers, workers and the environment."
This malignant spiral is deliberately propelled by Republicans by the exploitation of wedge issues and all their other cunning divide and conquer tactics that they have so successfully employed in conning gullible, envious and angry voters into voting against their own best interests.
While Edsall talks about the need for Democrats to get their act together, he neglects to mention the vital importance of educating such voters, especially to the fact that they are being used; that as a result of their misdirected anger at liberals and government, allowing themselves to be conned, and voting for charlatans they are perpetuating bad government, and therefore responsible for their own anger.
It's essential that the liberal media not just preach to the choir, but find a way to reach out, connect with, and help open the eyes of those who know not what they are doing!
276
@ELB - If the Democrats insult or put down voters who don't agree with their positions, or put down whole areas of the country as hopelessly backward and unenlightened, the Republicans don't have to do much of anything. They can just smile and collect the votes, and that's what they're doing.
10
@ELB....I see your point, but what specifically do you suggest the 'liberal media' might do to connect with the non liberals, or whatever you want to call them? Seriously.
How to even define liberal media in a political culture so distorted by the norms set by the right wing and their mega donors?
Our liberal media doesn't even discuss how to finance affordable health care for all, common in most other democracies. It's kept dark.
Or god forbid, how to finance our elections without the paid ads financed by corporate mega donors. Totally avoided.
23
@ELB-
You can’t educate, or “re-educate” (because that’s what it becomes) people whose minds aren’t just narrow but closed, who don’t/won’t/can’t listen to counter-arguments because they aren’t trained to think critically and can’t emotionally tolerate doubt, or self-doubt. They also can’t emotionally tolerate ideas that challenge their litany of falsehoods and preconceived notions.
I know some now rather elderly people who hated Obama while he was president — and still do. The utter garbage that erupts from their mouthes I still find shocking. Not so much as a scintilla of truth in any of it but, as Rudy Giuliani himself professed with a straight face, “truth isn’t truth”. So their’s is a post-factual world. Therefore, Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii; case closed. And huge mobs of Central Americans organized in “Caravans” are invading our country. And Trump is making America great again. And Climate Change is a hoax perpetrated by China. And no collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russian intelligence services. And the Mueller Investigation is a witch hunt. And on, and on. Anything that contradicts all that they reject out-of-hand.
Nothing that I can say, do or show them dents their armor, gets them to doubt their nonsensical ideas. That’s because they only watch Fox News or listen to right-wing talk radio personalities (round up the usual suspects) where they obtain “alternate facts”, as Kelley Anne Conway describes them. And they don’t want anything different.
59
New democratic congressman should allow the lobbyists to approach them and document the offers that are made to them. After about a year they should expose this activity to the public.
21
Sadly that would cut off the money that flows to the parties and their politicians. Getting big money out of politics (thanks largely to McConnell and the GOP) should be at the top of the reform list.
4
The first step, as soon as it can be done, is to undo Citizens United and include the required lobbying legislation as well.
8
@Lloyd Marks This applies equally to new women members of Congress
An interesting yet also depressing take from this piece, as income inequality grows those affected are more likely to support policies that make it worse or be less involved meaning less likely to vote. The Republican dream it seems. A little like beat them into submission. Yet another resounding argument for getting money out of politics. It is also a reason that people should educate themselves about policies and vote the bums out.
7
Get those “money lenders” out of what once was a temple of democracy.
12
Does the author think that it adds to his analytical credibility to describe voters who do not support his favored policies as "increasingly mean spirited"?
1
@ERP - No, but it does explain why the Dems keep losing elections they should be winning. Vide infra....
3
It would be more beneficial to publish this information before the election, naming who is doing the giving and receiving.
7
@M Davis
Every day is a day before some future election.
Education of the voting public is an ongoing need. Less of bread and circuses and more of speaking truth in a way that all can understand and relate to is what will foster the change needed to revive our country's spirit.
The Muellar investigation has been an eye opener regarding the unregistered and registered lobbying on behalf of other nations, especially the nefarious. The next step is engaging seemingly respectable law firms to find loopholes to present their case legally in order to influence foreign policy. Everyone gets a piece of the pie lobbying domestically and internationally while US citizens are thrown dog bones or are lied to about laws like the sham tax cut. This leads me to suspect the decline in the public educational system is deliberate. The how and why the electoral process effects a family personally is not available to the disengaged, uneducated or the ignorant through no fault of their own, the educational system is lacking.. A bachelor's has been the new high school degree for many.
3
@rhdelp, this has been going on a long time. The Chinese, via John Huang, were providing illegal campaign financing to DNC and Bill Clinton for 1996 elections, and were richly rewarded with Clinton killing fellow Democrat Barbara Jordan's immigration reform, especially the chain migration reform opposed by China; and with Clinton making the big push to admit China into the WTO (was multi-year process begun during Clinton's 2nd term, after DNC got the $, and culminated in China's admission in 2001). Also supported by Mitch McConnell because of the shipping interests owned by his father-in-law in China (James Chao). Thus far, whether there was Russian help or not, Trump has done nothing comparable.
1
The widening wealth and opportunity gaps prove the U.S. version of democracy doesn't work, because its citizens are at the mercy of vested interests. I don't see a solution other than through generational change, by which time it will have been too late to recreate 'the land of equal opportunity' as it existed in the sixties and seventies.
Ironically, the Chinese version of dictatorship will be the big opportunity creator in the coming decades.
1
Thanks for putting this on the table. When corporate media and corporate funded politicians present only a limited spectrum of ideas derived from their mutual self-interest people become cynical about government. No surprise there. Creating cyncism is the stock and trade of the corporate class because it disempowers the masses. It also makes them suseptable to false profits like Donald Trump. When people become desperate, that will be something that demands attention. If Democratic politicians don’t pay attention and reject corporate money, particularly pharmeucical, fossil fuel, banking, and the construction and real estate industries which have dominated public policy in recent decades, especially since Citizens United, we are headed for desperation. I hope they can see that through their limousine windows. Now with crowd funding, Democratic politicians have the chance to do the right thing. Let’s hope a truely wise and ethical leader emerges.
17
That is why Pelosi & Schumer shouldn’t have been picked as leaders this time around. Nothing will change. We need youth in Congress. “We have the best Congress money can buy.” I will measure Pelosi by how she can or can’t pass single-payer healthcare, or will she succumb to the power of large corporations running our healthcare system as usual.
13
@Tim Shaw,
Give it some time. Both leaders know that establishment Dem policies are dead. Attempting to bring them back means an end to the party.
2
Here's another thing the Democrats could try: alienate potential supporters.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a white man? Do you like women? Aha, you are an evil racist and a sexist. You may also be a dumb hick driving a pickup truck who votes against your own interest. You should be voting for us, you big dummy!
Whether it's against their interest or not, no bloc of voters has ever voted for a party that regards them with contempt.
3
You’re kidding me, right? GOP voters in the lower economic category have been doing this since Reagan. They keep supporting “conservatives” and can’t understand why their fiscal woes get worse.
9
@Andy Makar - I believe liberal Democrats have been looking down on those without college degrees since Adlai Stevenson ran in 1952. The GOP has been able to paint the Dems as Ivy League elitists for the past 50 or 60 years, and very successfully, too.
The big exception was LBJ, who was a Democrat in the mold of FDR. Blue-collar voters liked him, and he passed legislation to help them. Today, a politician like LBJ would be considered a crude and evil racist, even though he passed the Civil Rights Act.
3
Edsall shows where the press has gotten it all wrong as to what constitutes the “swamp.” The more the government interjects itself into the business of private enterprises, the more work you create for lobbyists. Ergo, trump’s efforts to cut regulations are the best thing that can done to reduce the size of the swamp bc it’s the only thing that can be done to reduce the value of hiring lobbyists.
Also this illustrates that complaining about citizens united is a red herring. Businesses get more bang for their buck from lobbying than from campaign donations. Overruling citizens united will do nothing to restrain the right of businesses to hire lobbyists or constrain the amount they can spend on lobbying.
3
By that reasoning, we should eliminate government altogether. Businesses has always required regulation. Otherwise we are anarchists. The problem is that money makes us forget the public good.
3
@Andy Makar....if the govt that We The People elect doesn't regulate corporations, then corporations regulate the govt of we the people.
Then big business and elite mega donors simply become like the arisocrats and colonial powers of past centuries---that America overthrew.
It's all just updated into modern terms.
So we stand in long lines to vote for the candidates our mega donors approve of, who will give them return on investment.
We can't even afford to invest.
1
The question was asked how do some European democracies try to prevent big money from corrupting their elections.
I do believe that in Sweden if you obtain a certain percentage of the vote the state provides money to run and a certain amount of free TV time. You are not supposed to take money from other sources.
3
@Edward Blau....yes, our media ignores this, and we need columns on it to inform us of the contrast. Our states do vary on public financing but we need an overview.
I've read that EU nations use more public funding for basic campaign costs and media time for all candidates. They also limit private donations, and have much shorter campaigns.
The biggest difference-- I read in Wiki on campaign advertising---that many nations actually ban the paid campaign ads that flood our media and inundate our voters during prolonged campaigns. Here, this brings big profits to American media. It's our biggest campaign expense.
Says countries ban these ads so that special interests cannot dominate their political discourse. Imagine that.
The average citizen is given more of a voice, to compete with special interests? What a concept!
Here it's distorted into a 'free speech' issue for corporate personhood, by a Supreme Court that passed Citizens United. The public and many politicians want to reverse that, but it's not even discussed in our media.
Could our PBS ever do a documentary on CU, and compare it to political money in other democracies?
This answers the question why the Supreme Court ruled the way they did in Citizen's United - even our judiciary is brought.
10
"The ability of this elite constituency to meet politicians’ demands for campaign contributions and other resources, the authors argue, has allowed Congress to ignore traditional “populist concerns regarding dominant economic interests”"
I am very glad to see this detailed study of the illness which afflicts our government and politics generally.
However, this same problem afflicts the Presidency. It was a major problem leading to the defeat of Hillary.
The revolving door is part of this, the "other resources" beyond campaign funds. That afflicts the whole of the executive departments.
It is even true of the Judiciary. At the highest levels, the nominees were recruited and groomed by big money in carefully tended jobs. At state levels, they can add to that the campaign funds too.
At the state level, Legislatures and Governors and their Administrations are bought cheaper and caught in less intense scrutiny, so more brazen.
Our whole system is sick with what troubles Congress. It is all branches, top to bottom, State and Federal.
If only it was just Congress. However, the complete abdication of responsibility by Congress is explained by this, which is one specific major problem today.
34
A note about oligarchy and its formation: History has shown that meritocracy in combination with economic reward as an upward mobility driver in time produces a calcified top-down society. This pattern has been our societal structure from the early Egyptian and Levant period. It continues to be the same today in all societies. Future generations become an entrenched moneyed oligarchy grounded on nepotistic loyalty.
We humans are programmed that way. We are economic and nepotistic animals. As a result, economic power is rigged in favor of the oligarchic blood line by way of massive wealth transfers to succeeding generations. With it comes political privilege, intermarriage among the privileged, superior education and superior medical care.
In time this entrenchment always leads to wide distortions in wealth and privilege which in turn leads to a fracturing and ultimate disintegration of underlying order. The beginnings of this are becoming evident in America today.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
22
@David Anderson
How would you counter this?
@Patrick
Adopt the original Swedish Social Democracy system gradually implemented from the 30 s on.
1
We have term limits here in Colorado. When I worked for the State and talked with elected representatives, one of them said something that has stuck with me. When people are limited in the amount of time in office, who becomes the repository for the history and inner workings of the government? It's the lobbyists who become the experts because they are there beyond the term limits. They become the experts when it comes to how to get things done.
It doesn't matter which party, it becomes lobbyists who now not only get you elected via Citizens United, but they know better how to pull the strings of government.
43
@Fredd R Same here in Michigan. Fortunately term limits for federal House members and Senators are unconstitutional.
3
@Fredd R. This was the warning delivered to us in California when term limits were up for consideration by the voters. California voted for term limits and yes indeed what we got was a permanent class of lobbyists leading around the politicians focused on landing their next gig in the game of political musical chairs. Term limits have been a disaster.
8
@Fredd R
I think this is absolutely correct. Term limits are a thoughtless "solution" to not being able to vote out one's opponents. The lobbyists gain in power every time a political expert leaves (Gov. Brown) who is replaced by a less expert person (Gov. Newsom).
1
The one major thing we can do to eliminate the vast majority of lobbying with cash ( arguing something on its merits is fine) would be to go to publicly financed elections.
Furthermore (because the electorate has shrunk and has more sway), there should be mandatory voting, which would lead to representatives beholden so much more to the people (ALL of the people), and not those lobbyists.
Just a thought ...
39
@FunkyIrishman
I agree. Maybe it's time to consider that with rights also come responsibilities, and the two can't be separated.
7
@FunkyIrishman Don't know. I lived in Belgium, where both of your suggestions more or less exist (unenforced duty to show up at the voting booth ~ mandatory voting).
Mandatory voting is associated with the country's political inertia. Discontent is a powerful motivator to show up and vote, that element doesn't exist there.
Belgium, on all levels of government, is stuck in coalitions of the same parties that don't change much over time, nor the people in it.
As to capped and public campaign financing, the same principles of brand awareness apply, only it heavily favors well known incumbents who in many cases are career politicians, their children, and newcomer celebrities. It's not great either, but I guess that one could be the lesser of two evils.
2
@Liz
Hard to compare a country that has a parliamentary system and with the population of only North Carolina. I may expand on mandatory voting, and that it should be by paper ballot and via mail. People are automatically signed up whenever they apply for some sort of I.D. (already done in many instances)
Also publicly financed elections already happen at the state level in many states, whereas the true comparison would be Britain at a federal level.
It has been proven to work, and would essentially wipe out the legalized bribery that exists.
Just another thought ,,,
5
Abd nowhere in this analysis was consideration given for continued personal unaccountability by elected and selected policymakers, at all levels, from local, to regional to national. As well as by individual and systemic donors. Operating as a toxic force. Which enables a tradition-anchored WE-THEY culture. In which created, selected and targeted “the other(s)” are violated.Daily. By words and deeds quite “legally!” Impunity remains alive and well. Joined by infectious complacency.Shameless complicity. As well as endemic willfully blindness. Deafness. And will ignorance about what is that should never BE! And what is critically needed for menschlich societal civility, between a diverse many, are the seeding and sustaining of conditions fostering mutual respect, trust, caringness and help, when and as needed.Enabled by equitable sharing of limited human and nonhuman resources as a bridge for viable well-being. Personal accountability is sorely missing in this scenario, which is not a semantic-fantasy! Vertical barriers to needed changes can BE come horizontal bridges for menschlichkeit when there are enough of an active US, daily. to make a difference which makes a difference!
1
By declaring that corporations are "people" with the full right of "free speech" - i.e., the right to buy politicians with unlimited campaign contributions - our right wing Supreme Court has totally changed the dynamics of our political system. What we have now is nothing less than legalized bribery. The little guy doesn't stand a chance.
111
The solution is sunlight and/or public financing of elections.
If taxpayers paid for the billions in campaign expenses and non-millionaire/billionaire money was banned, taxpayers would regain that expense in trillions of dollars since public policy would then be designed much more for fairly and for the common good than for the corrupt 0.1% and corrupt corporations.
The reason America has the greatest healthcare rip-off in the world is 0.1% campaign corruption.
While no party can unilaterally disarm, it is the Republican Party that led the charge for Citizens United and other destructive campaign corruption decisions.
The solution is to vote Democratic, progressive and socialist.....not for Randians, Republicans, oligarchs and money-speech sociopaths.
Republicans have made absolute mincemeat out of American fake democracy.
Progressives are our only hope to get us out of this right-wing sewer of 0.1% greed and misanthropy.
Voting really matters.
Remember in 2020.
237
@Socrates....don't lecture anyone reading this column that 'Voting really matters. Remember in 2020.'
Really? Like we have to be lectured to?
We need columns in the NYT on how most other capitalist democracies use more public funding, limit private donations, and actually ban the privately financed campaign advertising that floods our media and makes big profits for it.
If all this was concretely explained using positive contrast, it would help build a movement here for change. An occasional column by 1 columnist, Edsall won't do it. Our media ignores the whole issue.
Yeah, we'll vote and have to stand in long lines to pick politicians that don't buck the system too strongly, while speaking out to redress our grievances.
We let the biggest mega donors finance and market our nominees for their best investment. The highest fund raising candidates may not always win our votes, but big money still sets our political norms and policy limits. That's why we lack universal h/c, generations behind dozens of nations.
We hope those who do us less harm will win.
25
@Meredith Thanks for the don't lecture anyone comment. I don't need a lecture and suspect folks that read these commentary sections don't either. Respectfully, Socrates as a handle,what would you expect? Good day to you and Socrates.
7
@Meredith Only 61.4% of adult American citizens voted in 2016, according to the US Census Bureau. Just saying.
13
As always, Mr Edsall delivers a brilliant synthesis and analysis drawing from and pulling together varied sources. From here in France in the midst of the "yellow vest" crisis, it resonates even more since we have discovered that, yes,, "as the gulf between rich and poor widens, voters become increasingly mean spirited and hostile to the welfare state, progressive taxation and regulations designed to protect consumers, workers and the environment" and that there exists a "reinforcing mechanism where the unequal distribution of income leads to political exclusion, which in turn leads to more inequality." And we are seeing the results of a new party gaining power before having " fully cultivated a leadership cadre equipped to address the conflicts ..." Unfortunately these insights don't make me optimistic for either France or the US.
11
Is ours still a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, Lincoln’s undying last phrase in his Gettysburg Address? Or has it perished from the Earth?
Decades of corruption epitomized by Washington's lobbying industry have rotted it out but — probably not — yet. But it is severely weakened. By cronyism. Ideological cant. Partisan warfare. Social/culture wars. And unresponsiveness caused by the immense size of government and the Rule of Law itself, Due Process the greatest culprit. The question is whether we can restore a semblance of proportion and flexibility before some gilt-tongued autocrat comes along and kicks its rotten edifice into the ground to cheers and jeers.
Trump is doing that now, or trying, out of self-interest now that Mueller is closing in. But even his hardest kicks probably can’t knock it down because it’s too much too soon, unless he gets more significant covert help from his mentor Putin, his silent partner in our destruction. But add to the damage that he’s already done to the presidency his indifference to facts, truth, law, norms and customs — his assault on our republic's civic foundations — those will deform it and it will be lasting.
Can he weaken them sufficiently so some future demagogue can finish it off? If we don’t confront our greatest existential threats — Climate Change and out-of-control wasteful government spending that created ~$35-trillion in federal debt plus another ~$50-trillion in unfunded future liabilities, yes.
2
@Steve Singer
As you are from Chicago you know you get the best government money can buy, cost is no problem.
1
It all starts with the campaign donations.
An educated electorate requires transparent, unfettered, access to the names of their candidate's financial backers, and the more information about these backers the better.
Because transactions can be hidden via the confidentiality of a tax return, those documents should also be included in the disclosures.
We don't have that clear a picture of the donations and that handicaps the voters. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Financial backer information is the most more important information the electorate could have. If it wasn't so important, why do our officials spend so much time trying to secret this information away from the public?
We need complete transparency.
26
Thank you Mr. Edsall. This article is extremely informative, yet at the same time quite depressing. Is there any escape from this cycle, where big money continues to reinforce the unequal and unfair status quo? How long until AOC and the entering Democratic class of would-be reformers are caught in this trap?
3
An excellent summary by Thomas Edsall, and a worthy addition to the argument for completely publicly funded elections, with no corporate/organizational/union contributions allowed, and very low (three-digit) limits on individual contributions to each campaign.
We also need reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, legislative overturning of the Citizens' United decision, and the like--because you can't get representatives representing their actual constituents when they're dependent on a handful of libertarian oligarchs for their continued political careers.
The effect of cash on campaigns and politics is more pernicious than just about anything, and these reforms would probably be the single most important ones we can make in handing government back to the governed.
39
Walt Kelly's phrase “We have met the enemy and he is us” seems most apt. Interestingly in the Sandinavian countries lobbyists are not regulated but these countries appear regularly on lists of the world's best democracies. Perhaps it's because people see voting as more than an obligation. Voter turnout is much higher, voters appear more engaged and the number of parties in their legislatures is significantly more than two. Norway alone has eight parties. It becomes much more difficult to hijack and influence a political process when there are many more voices making themselves heard.
8
Time has come to change that typical "American culture" of making policies which are good mainly for corporate America.
Time has come to change that typical "American culture" of making policies which are good mainly for corporate America. It mostly started with Reagan and then almost all successive administration, including those of Dems (except Obama, I think) strengthened it.
Reforming our education system to groom balanced students, who can actually think to take decisions based on fact and logic and not on (mostly hereditary) political and/or religious allegiance, would be the key for a better future of this country- in fact, any country.
Revolving door policy for public policy makers and politicians, who hold Govt positions beyond certain level, must not be allowed to join private companies for certain years (say, for example, one presidential term or 4 yrs). That proposal to have a "cooling off" period is there for long but, as expected, it's never been taken up by the Congress for a serious discussion.
But we all know it's almost impossible to achieve any of those as both big corporate and religious institutions are far too powerful to subvert American democracy since it was established, except few decades of real national crisis during two world wars. And that actually made America a super power. Now we can understand what we can achieve if we invest even fraction of that in our own nation building now or ever.
5
When Congress gets nothing done, politicians and media pundits tend to blame it on partisanship. It seems, the situation is even more grim. How can citizens and the environment stand a chance against a tsunami of legalized bribery?
The numbers are so mind boggling, I had to read them twice.
Excellent work, Mr. Edsall.
More than ever, we need to keep our eyes on the ball i.e. on the takeover of America by corporate shareholders.
121
Mr. Edsall writes that spending on political campaigns by corporate and lobbying groups can "determine entire classes of winners and losers.” He then goes on to cite a large body of evidence to support that claim. It’s depressing because we seem to be in a box without escape.
The column describes an oligarchic economy largely designed to preserve the power of the elites. Even in our tech-driven sector, monopoly power arises. There was once a time when the words Microsoft, Apple, and Google were merely whimsical names for little companies in tech. They each entered their respective markets in operating systems software, computer hardware, and online search. They each now more than dominate those markets. Such is the type of change in a technology-based economy. The disruptor becomes the old guard that eventually uses their power to lobby for favorable treatment by governments.
We now have seen the systematic underfunding of public education, the marketing of opioids to rural people, the erosion of the buying power of the minimum wage, among others troubling developments. At the same time, we are returning to the casino economy of financial derivatives and policies to saddle the people with debt.
It will take more than a couple of elections to reverse the trend to economic inequality and the deliberate stacking of the deck against the rest of us. Campaign finance reform might help, but that requires negating the power of the tasseled loafer set. Good luck with that.
51
As depressing as some of this information may be, the studies cited may not take into consideration how people's economic interests can come into sharper focus when those are neglected or undermined over a long period of time. The piece, while very insightful, may also be so focused on traditional differences in the interests of consumers verses business that it fails to adequately capture the growing conflict between what are essentially monopolists that use their political connections and power to hide their lethargic, cumbersome business models verses smaller, nimble entrepreneurs who challenge them.
Mr. Edsall fails to cite one of those big lobbying entities, the big telecoms, that face growing hostility from those small business interests that need modern, high-speeed communications technology to succeed and are thwarted by the big telecoms monopolists, anti-competitive tendencies. Those small businesses, collectively, are not going anywhere. Their owners are connected to their elected representatives. So whether kicking and screaming, or with smiles, policymakers can be brought to positions of reason.
1
Dems need a progressive candidate with charisma, proven find-raising ability, and the ability to unite multiple different constituencies?
Beto? Are you paying attention? Do you really think there’s anyone else?
2
@Ace J
Amy Klobuchar for President.
I hope that there will be a transitional phase where all funds donated by lobbyists are directed to an American Permanent Fund (a la Alaska’s Permanent Fund.) Candidates should pledge to only take individual contributions up to $25. All else goes to the fund… Meet with whoever you want, hear whatever you want but all funds over $25 go there.. 3.3B clams will add up and maybe we can get something done politically that helps Americans... You don’t take the pledge, you don’t get my vote. (that’s a far better pledge than Grover’s….)
10
Note that investment , real estate and healthcare lobbies donated significantly more to Democrats. Chuck & Nancy are a captive duo who see their job as keeping a lid on the newbies. That is why they are leading the “No Wall” battle; it appears to give them credibility among the new activist Congress, but it is really a distraction from the status quo they represent.
If we ever see Trump’s tax returns you can blame his legally avoiding taxes on the leadership and votes cast by Democrats led by C&N.
5
@Asher Fried
C&N's donors want cheap labor. So of course they'll do their best to deliver by any means necessary.
Thank you, Mr. Edsall, for your detailed dive into the power that $$$$$ has over those we elect to represent our interests in government.
As lie after lie has been exposed (fat is bad, sugar is good,) bringing into question the true $$$$ motivation of these mega-lobbies and with the bizarre Citizens United decision, it seems that in a Democracy, like oil & water, big $$$$$ and politics don't mix.
52
Read this piece if you want to begin to get an understanding of why nothing gets done in Congress and Washington.
13
Don’t know what to make of this. At one and the same time, I find it interesting — almost captivatingly interesting — and disgusting — sickeningly disgusting.
There is simply no way out of our seemingly accelerating decline without overcoming this malignancy.
My last thought: This is great reporting, and hallelujah for that!
Mike
121
@Mike Lawler
The only way out is to take money out of politics - no billionaire-funded lobbying groups.
It will be difficult to do this - the Supreme Court was bought by lobbying groups. But it is not impossible. 7 terms of Democratically elected leaders in the legislatures at all levels of government, a long succession of Democratic presidents who come from mixed backgrounds, all genders, and geographic distribution, and a limit on ALL campaign contributions to $2,700 per person. Require at least two opposing news sources in all geographic locations and insure that this happens. Perhaps all news sources need to be owned by a combination of rich and poor - I've never heard this issue discussed.
There is no doubt that many voters are simply gullible and misinformed - especially those with less education and more religion.
I think we might also consider limited the number of judges who can be Roman Catholics and hence deeply influenced by Roman Catholic views on control of women's bodies. To me, it is outrageous that the USA, where less than half of all people believe in a formal faith such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, 6 of our 9 Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholics. The idea thast Roman Catholocism has been liberalized or that it is no longer a threat to democracy is just bogus.
Evangelicals are the powerful voices of Republilcan law makers and Republican candidates. Trump voters are primarily evangelicals who treat women as less than men in all respects.
10
@San Francisco Voter Roman Catholicism was created and allowed to exist in Europe for the sole purpose of supporting the monarchy. While most modern Catholic people are more enlightened, the structure of the church still promotes that ideology.
That's why for decades priests have been able to get away with abuse. Authority was not to be questioned.
Nor can authority be questioned with respect to abortion or birth control.
We can hope that Catholicism will continue to liberalize, but I'm not sure that orthodox Catholicism is compatible with a representative democracy.
6
The fundamental problem is that to win an election, politicians must pay to campaign on television. They need massive amounts of money for ads. The deals they make with industry and lobbyists to get this money are simply corrupting.
21
It was at 5:45am on the West Coast that I read this op-Ed and I’m starting out the day super depressed. I am so afraid that Democrats will once again squander the opportunity to actually lead and to get past the corrosive influence money has on politics. What is happening in America is so disheartening and I am heartbroken about the misery the poor and middle class find themselves in.
The worst of it all is the D’s have lost their way as well. Where is the party that welcomed the scorn of the bankers? Where is the party that, in the past, stood up for the poor? I personally see no hope at all u less D’s move to the left in a major way on issues that matter to the largest voting block - the middle class. I’m not holding my breath.
27
Thanks Tom, excellent column.
Basically, our representatives are for the most part bought and sold. Wouldn’t it be helpful to have more transparency on where the money is going to and for what?
We didn’t get into this predicament overnight and it may take several election cycles to turn the tide. I’m encouraged by the new class of representatives but realize that given the President and Senate makeup, little change is likely.
Nancy is the best hope we have for getting anything done. If nothing else, the congress must lead and show Americans that they are keeping their noses to the grindstone passing legislation to help the average worker and let them see how the upper house and President resist their efforts. This behavior will over time show that actions speak louder than words and resonate with more independent voters.
7
Follow the money or better yet lack thereof.
6
Good overview of where we are now. But just as with taxes, other issues, I look forward to more nuts and bolts articles. Review that old Supreme Court decision differentiating trade organizations from labor unions. Review state incorporations- is it time for federal incorporation, and defining, limiting, the powers, rights of corporations.
Business write offs; do companies get to deduct lobbying expenses? Why? Do we get to deduct, get a tax credit for a trip to D.C. to talk with our representatives, trips to our state capitol?
Where are the laws prohibiting corporate, and yes, union, non-profits, from entering government buildings, offices? Perhaps only human constituents should have access to offices? And why are publicly financed email systems of our senators and reps only accessible by their constituents? Their actions affect all of us, yet they limit our voices; past time to limit lobbyist, corporate voices.
And on and on. Let’s talk, write about why they have the power, access- and how to curtail it. It’s the small stuff that often matters more.
49
@Jo Williams - That is prohibited by the First Amendment, as interpreted by the courts. Basically, any individual or organization has the right to ask anything of any government official. You can be a constituent, an individual from another state, or a corporate exec. The Supreme Court has, however, ruled that government officials don't have pay any attention to what you say, and can toss your proposals in the trash.
I assume that unlimited campaign spending is now protected by the Supreme Court decision on free speech.
However, it would seem the Democrats could impose a limit (either by party rule or a public agreement) on spending for their primaries and set some limit on the influence of business groups.
12
Well, this is certainly depressing. Look, there is always a conflict between economics and politics. A politician can't do any good if he or she cannot get elected.So what is a politician to do if the voters believe in economic nonsense?
This column points out that in the case of inequality, the voters have the right idea. They are against it. BUT they are also against practical ways of reducing it. AND the more they suffer from it, the more the more they are opposed to solutions:
" study after study shows that as the gulf between rich & poor widens, voters become increasingly mean spirited & hostile to the welfare state, progressive taxation & regulations designed to protect consumers, workers and the environment."
Furthermore, those in favor of inequality are not only in favor of the ways to increase it, but they know how to do this & have the money to do so. And they have done so.
I believe that excessive inequality is wrong not only because it is immoral, but because it is bad for the economy of the country as whole. Money held by the Rich is less useful to the economy because they spend a smaller percentage & use the rest for dangerous financial speculation.
Edsall points out a 3rd reason. For some reason, inequality makes people oppose exactly those policies which benefit the country as a whole.
It would be nice to believe that the country will learn the facts, & will find a way to counter the forces of the Rich, but this column sure puts a damper on tha.
26
America is looking a lot like feudal states of the past: a king-like president, lords of politics and barons of wealth, divvying up the spoils of the realm, dictating the social contract as they see fit, while the working classes toil the lower floors of corporations, employed ‚at will‘.
The new generation of left-leaning democrats seem to be hammering at the manor gates - but will there truly be a new rise of the middle or are the just a few fugitive Robin Hoods?
Such a shame that the ideals of the Founding Fathers have been thrown into the moats...
11
A lot of words and facts that essentially say and prove one thing: This country is no longer a democracy.
236
Indeed. Like that song by Billy Joel: to cover it up they throw an American flag in your face.
35
@expat in Finland
I'm sure a conservative would correct you and point out that we are a democratic republic. That bit of trivia aside, the question is: how democratic do we want our republic to be and how do we of lesser means work to achieve that? Or perhaps, do we have a realistic chance of achieving the level of democracy most people desire?
1
Ray Zielinski, this is not rocket science nor philosophy. The minimum of democracy we need requires forbidding people and corporations from donating more than, f.ex., about 10,000 dollars to each candidate. If enough U.S. Americans finally understand and demand this, the necessary laws and regulations will soon be adopted.
It's so stupid and childish that U.S. Americans blame politicians for being corrupt but don't demand laws that prevent rich people and corporations from influencing who gets elected, what laws are passed and what's in them, and how courts and government agencies interpret laws and regulations.
Europeans laugh and shake their heads when they hear about the truth about the crazy politics and horrible lives of U.S. Americans. Even poor people in Europe have more vacation and better health care than most rich people in the US.
5
In other words, democratic politicians and the democratic party are just as much in cahoots with big business as conservatives. They hide behind social issues until it's time for them to ride off into the sunset with their spoils. Ever see one of them who doesn't end up wealthy?
36
Jimmy Carter seems decent enough. Good points though.
4
@Jim
Bernie Sanders.
4
@Noah
Totally agree with Carter, but it's telling you had to go back to a politician from the 70s to cite an example...
3
Great piece which forcefully explains the power of money in our society. This power is used primarily for one thing, to make more money no matter the consequences. The policies embraced by lobbyists for large companies have little to do with important issues like climate change or health care or the cost of prescription drugs but everything to do with the bottom line.
190
@Jordan Davies
Most call it lobbying, I call it bribing, pure and simple, made available by the GOP and their SCOTUS.
2
@Jordan Davies Money is the mother's milk of politics. But when Jesse Unruh coined the phrase over 50 years ago, the numbers were a lot smaller. What does $100 million plus in campaign contributions by a billionaire buy? It got the government to move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. But more importantly, the Adelsons have access to the President, Israel continues to get lots of foreign aid from the US and Republicans who toe the line get to share in the goodies. You be good to mama and mama'll be good to you. (Queen Latifah in "Chicago")
1