THE POWER UNREALIZED

The Power Unrealized and Unrecognized

It seems almost quaint. One of the first papers that I wrote after I began my college experience had to do with the effect of television on Presidential campaigns. There really wasn't that much data since, if I recall correctly, the year was 1966 or 1967. There had been only 4 or 5 elections during the television age but it was obvious that the medium was going to be a mover for politicos. Fresh in our minds was the image of the cool, collected John Kennedy and the perspiring, nervous Richard Nixon. We had no idea of the colossus it would become.

We ran through the 70s and 80s with little change in technique but the foundation was being laid for the colossus it would become.  By the 90s social science had streamlined the messages into 30 second messages that polling told campaign managers would move the numbers.  As data accumulated the science of messaging became more and more like actuarial science and it could be predicted within a few points what a message in a demographic would do.

It was about this time that our experiment in public financing came to an ignominious end and the floodgates of independent money began to provide enormous amounts of public viewing of political advertising.  It became possible to inundate targeted areas with political advertising through the use of cable and satellite channels that could focus advertising on a very specific area enabling manipulation of the message for maximum influence.

As the new century rolled in money became more and more influential and necessary in order for a candidate to compete with opposition advertising.  No longer was it enough to have a message, a platform to tell the voter what one would do if elected.  That no longer had the power to sway voters the way that targeted advertising or the increasing use of advertising to increase the negatives of the opposition could.  One could be elected without ever explaining what he or she would do if elected.  It was enough to frighten the public about what the opposition would do if elected.  True or not.

 Campaign Donors to date

Norman Braman, in Miami in 2014, is among four donors who contributed a collective $12.5 million to Marco Rubio's "super PAC," Conservative Solutions PAC. Credit Aaron Davidson/Getty Images 

 

The use of Political Action Committees and Public Issue Organizations made it possible to collect huge sums of money to use for messaging and organization.  Corporations and their Trade Groups now spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress for favorable legislation and legislation to allow their campaign contributions to be ever greater. First Congress and then the Supreme Court acquiesced.

Perhaps the greatest impact of all came with the advent of the internet and social messaging sites.  The freedom of access gave anyone with a gripe or an ideology a chance to cast it to a global audience.  Everyone became an "expert" able to comment on any topic as authoritatively as a Harvard lawyer. These avenues of expression opened a floodgate of complaints about the constitutionality of behavior from people with no knowledge of how our political system works or without consideration of how Supreme Court decisions have defined various aspects of the Constitution.

Our last Presidential election in 2012 became the first billion dollar election with many supposedly non-affiliated organizations carrying much of the campaign expenses for advertising. Already fund raising is predicted to dwarf those numbers with many limits having been lifted by the argument that money equals free speech. Never mind that more money equals more free speech with the individual not having enough free speech to be heard. Campaigners claim that the donations to their campaigns will have no influence on them whatsoever but that finds me a bit incredulous. The appearance is that the money is influencing legislation and that campaigners are becoming more and more beholden to those who finance their election. This season is showing that there are large numbers of voters resentful of being denied voice in their government and it is creating a messy political environment. That's OK with me. Democracy is messy when ALL the people have a voice. The problem is the organizations who are paying the price to get to determine the answers.

I no longer know if we have the political will to do what is necessary to return power to the people. Right now we have the opportunity to do what is necessary to reclaim the the prerogative of the people to democratically choose their own direction and the direction of our republic. Social media and what it has revealed to us about the internet has given us the means to allow more people than ever to participate in the governmental process. My misgivings are not with the results of the will of the people but with the powerful interests that want to deny that right. I believe that the collective will of the people will always keep us on the right course and that it is the prostitution of the political process that denies the people the fruits of their existence.

I have never been a great believer in the ability of term limits to change the quality of our government. I believe that the effects of money can corrupt even a first term challenger. The only answer is to return government to the people by prohibiting all campaign contributions and publicly funding elections that are governed by a strict format that will eliminate the outsized power of money.
My Take is that if the people will demand it we can have it.