In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, preliminary data shows that approximately one third of eligible voters chose not to cast a ballot. While there are certainly a myriad of reasons for this (from Election Day not being classified as a federal holiday, to disillusionment with frontrunning candidates and political institutions, to obstacles in states where requirements are complicating the voting process), one possible explanation may be the sense of hopelessness that many Americans feel regarding elections.Ā
A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that 10 percent of Americans describe themselves as often hopeful about politics, and just four percent are excited. In contrast, 65 percent said they often feel exhausted when thinking about politics. These results coincide with a large majority, 80 percent, of Americans believing that large campaign donors have too much influence on congressional decisions, and 72 percent advocating for limits on campaign spending.Ā
The disproportionate influence of corporate funding has long been an open secret in American politics. Even congressional insiders have been sounding the alarm, with politicians like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez taking the no corporate PAC (political action committee) pledge to swear off corporate money entirely.Ā
However, these large donors still demonstrate a large threat, from PACs such as one associated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and lobbying organizations like the National Rifle Organization (NRA) exerting considerable influence. Recently, AIPAC played a role in defeating incumbent congressional progressives like Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush in primaries through outsized donations to pro-Israel Democrats. Meanwhile the NRA has continuously lobbied against expanding background checks and banning assault weapons, despite widespread national support for those measures.
The potential, and very real, consequences of this corporate money are clear. Neither corporate donors nor the campaigns receiving their contributions are held accountable to represent the people supporting them, whether smaller individual shareholders or voters.Ā
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision allows large sums of corporate money to be funneled directly from corporations to campaigns. This ruling erased prior restrictions (which were deemed constitutional in cases like Buckley v. Valeo and Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce) implemented to limit donations from corporations, and was shortly after followed by the Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission case which worked to erase limits on individual donations to PACs and enable the creation of super PACs.Ā
Consequently, modern rulings permit corporations to exercise their own sort of āfree speechā to promote their interests through financially aiding candidatesā campaigns in a way that the average citizen could never afford to replicate. Meanwhile, politicians are incentivized to cater to those funding their reelection campaigns, neglecting the individual voters and communities who initially elected them. This dynamic affects the ability of constituents to be represented and reflected in the candidates they choose.Ā
This reality raises a number of ethical concerns that only contribute to the loss of faith in the current electoral system. If one voterās voiceāor even tens of thousands to millions of voicesācan be pushed aside when a corporate donation rolls in, what incentives do eligible voters have to show up to the polls to advocate for tangible change?
Politicians are meant to be public servants, and they must face consequences for actions that fail to serve and, at their worst, harm the public. Those in powerful corporate positions must be held accountable for the financially-motivated influence they exert, and the voices of the economically marginalized need to be considered and amplified. This influx of corporate money disproportionately affects marginalized communities, who are already disadvantaged in advocacy efforts and lack the governmental representation needed to obtain institutional power.Ā
In a world free from the undue influence of corporations, where the legal and judicial systems work to eliminate the ability of corporations to control the legislative process, the issues faced by real people could be addressed through a more democratic and equitable system.