A momentous choice permeates the minds of American voters this fall. For this presidential election is between two polar opposites. On one side there is President Barack Obama, whose policies will strive for wealth redistribution and middle-class security. This is apparent in his Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which attempts to hold Wall Street accountable, prevent future financial crises and end the era of “too big to fail.” He also enacted a Credit Card Bill of Rights to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices, like over-the-limit charges and hidden costs. These policies are clearly in defense of the middle class, yet we must acknowledge Obama’s abrasive national security policies that have led to drone strikes occurring in Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen.
Staunchly opposed is Mitt Romney, a man whose policies and rhetoric reflect the ideals of corporate interest. This interest is clearly outlined in the Romney-Ryan Economic Plan. It plans to raise taxes on families earning between thirty and forty thousand dollars by almost five hundred dollars a year, while also reducing taxes on millionaires by an average of over five-hundred thousand dollars. This tax plan is in defense of “job creators,” however, that is far from the truth. For we must acknowledge that it is not shareholders who are the “job creators” of America, but the low-income educators all across America that inspire the dreams of our youth.
Policy and partisanship aside, within this monumental choice lies the precedence of Citizen’s United v. FEC 2010. Often overlooked, the Supreme Court’s decision in 2010 completely alters campaign financing. It establishes political spending as a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and prohibits the government from keeping corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast. Fundamentally it creates a divide for politicians between a dependence upon “The People” and a dependence upon “the funders.”
Inherently, Romney and Obama both depend upon votes. However, to capture those votes they both depend upon SuperPAC’s to spread influence. These political action committees are in large part funded by corporate entities. For example the Koch brothers who own Oxbow, the largest distributor of petroleum coke in the world with annual shipments of nearly 11 million tons, have donated three million dollars to the Restore Our Future (Romney) political action committee. Notably Kareem Ahmed CEO of Landmark Medical Management, a medical billing and collecting firm donated one million dollars to Priorities USA Action (Obama). Clearly the motifs behind such donations are closely tied to legislation.
Therefore, when the confetti falls this November, neither of these men will still depend upon your vote. Instead, lobbyists and special interests will move in, beckoning that the winner serve their interest — for they are the ones who contributed large sums to said politician’s victory. Inevitably the possibility of the People’s interest being brushed aside arises and with that we must question if our democracy is awry.