American politicians are often humorously characterized in pop culture as disgustingly rich, self-serving, and entirely uncaring of the people they govern. They might be depicted smoking cigars, scheming, and cutting ruthless deals with other slimy characters to secure a big stack of cash. But how much of this caricature is fiction?

This portrayal of politics hits eerily close to the truth. The United States legislative system is fundamentally broken: the only way to pass policy is through legalized bribery. We assume politics to be a slow moving process. However, when the richest of the rich are involved, their financial influence is a clean ticket to political efficiency. The beliefs of the average person don’t matter—unless they have the money to back it up. Congress has become dominated by interest groups, drowning out middle-income citizens who can’t compete with massive donations and constant corporate lobbying. The system is not yet beyond fixing, but the American people must understand their current political powerlessness to eventually reclaim their legislators and hold them accountable.

The Lobbying System

Congressmembers spend much of their time in office raising money for their re-election, whether this be through call center-style phone calls or through huge fundraisers. They primarily recruit businesses, super PACs, and the extremely wealthy because these groups make the biggest financial impact through their donations. There are still genuine grassroots organizations that donate to politicians who are responsive to the desires of the average American. However, they are not the main offenders in the campaign finance issues plaguing this country. Out of all the potential policy areas to lobby for, business and industry interests dominate all others at a ratio of 34:1.

Politicians are often reliant on these groups for continued donations and support, so they align their agendas with special interests instead of their constituency. Congressmembers use earmarks (proposed funds often unrelated to the general intent of the original bill), invitations for lobbyists to participate in “informal mark-up sessions” of bills, and often unnoticed “late amendments” to policy. These actions, while somehow legal, are solely to inconspicuously appease donors.

The impacts of this misplaced accountability are increasingly evident in the policy (or lack thereof) that passes through Congress. In a study that sent shockwaves through the academic political community, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page proved that the average American has almost no impact on policy whatsoever. They used nearly 2,000 policy cases and measured support among average-income voters, the economic elite, and business interest groups. Gilens and Page then determined trends in legislation regarding these issues.

Terrifyingly, “the estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences” on the likelihood of policy passage is at a “non-significant, near-zero level.” If income is higher, the data tells a far different story. With “Economic Elite Support,” there is a 78% chance that a policy will be passed within four years. Business groups similarly share outsize influence on the legislative process. If businesses support an issue, there is a 43% chance of national policy change within four years. The lopsided power dynamic of major donors over the people is what leads to a gross mismanagement of political priorities and a disconnect from the beliefs of average American voters.

The above graph depicts that no matter what percent of average citizens favor a proposed policy change, their impact on its probability of adoption is almost negligible. Source: Gilens, M., & Page, B. (2014)

As displayed on this graph, as more economic elites favor a policy change, its probability of adoption increases exponentially. Source: Gilens, M., & Page, B. (2014)

As displayed in the above graph, interest groups’ support and opposition of a policy drastically changes its likelihood of adoption. Source: Gilens, M., & Page, B. (2014)

When a policy is supported by the median voter there is no statistically significant impact on its passage. Politicians don’t live in fear of disappointing their constituency—there is no real threat of being voted out of office if they don’t address the concerns of the average voter in their district.

Take Senator Mitch McConnell, for example. He represents Kentucky, one of the poorest and most welfare-dependent states in the country. Yet, he supports cutting the benefit programs his constituents rely on. He has the disapproval of approximately 54% of Kentucky voters and a measly 25% approval rating. Despite being one of the most hated figures in United States politics, how does McConnell keep getting reelected? Unsurprisingly, McConnell is one of the most lobbyist-dependent politicians in the nation. Making him further unaccountable to his constituents, 91% of his donations come from outside Kentucky. Super PACs and donors provide McConnell with multimillion-dollar ad blitzes and media campaigns, greatly contributing to his re-election chances.

And if the evidence wasn’t overwhelming enough, politicians themselves have admitted to the corrupt nature of the process. Take Senator Ted Cruz, who, in his frustration with the supposed liberal leanings of corporations, accidentally revealed too much about who really determines how he votes. In an op-ed denouncing PAC money, Cruz writes, “This is the point in the drama when Republicans usually shrug their shoulders, call these companies ‘job creators,’ and start to cut their taxes. Not this time. This time, we won't look the other way on Coca-Cola's $12 billion in back taxes owed… When the time comes that you need help with a tax break or a regulatory change, I hope the Democrats take your calls, because we may not.”

Cruz is explicitly conveying the corruption of the legislature. Politicians create loopholes for corporations that fund PACs and super PACs, though this support is conditional in Cruz’s case. Rather than treat these corporations as equal under the law to average Americans, politicians deprive the country of essential funding for social programs through tax exemptions and similar handouts. After the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut taxes for corporations and high income earners, non-partisan congressional committees found it would increase the deficit by about $1.9 trillion dollars over the next decade. Subsequently, President Trump proposed a budget that severely cut spending on healthcare, food assistance, housing, disability benefits, college grants, and other social welfare programs. These budget trade-offs punish poorer Americans in favor of appeasing donors and backers.

Corporations, business groups, and the economic elite are only “punished” (i.e. treated equitably to non-donors and average Americans) when they significantly deviate from the beliefs of the candidates they bankroll. Ted Cruz does not once mention the economic impacts of “corporate welfare,” in his words, on his working-class constituency. He doesn’t need to. Politicians only care about those who can provide the monetary or political benefits necessary to win re-election.

How we can fix this

Short answer: we can’t. At least, not in the short term. It is incredibly difficult to reform campaign finance policy because those with the power to change it are the ones who profit—both politically and economically—from the system itself. The Supreme Court, as politically insulated as the media claims it to be, has no interest in pursuing campaign finance reform either. The disastrous impacts of Citizens United v. FEC, decided in 2010, are still felt in the political system today. The ruling gave corporations and other groups free reign to “spend unlimited money on elections,” with further limitations on election spending almost certainly unconstitutional. The decision led to the creation of super PACs and the rise of “dark money,” campaign donations funneled through non-profits that cannot be publicly traced. The Supreme Court has shown no signs of wanting to overturn this ruling, and even seems eager to continue to loosen restrictions on donations in the name of “free speech.”

Until the courts change their tune, there is unfortunately not much that can be done. In the meanwhile, Americans must get educated on campaign finance. They need to be aware of the financial motivations behind the passage of policy.

Did Trump’s middle-income voters really support provisions of his tax bill that cut tax rates for multibillion-dollar corporations? Or rather, did his donors?

In a similar vein, why won’t Democratic party elites endorse Medicare For All? A Fox News Voter Analysis poll found that 72% of 2020 voters favored “changing to a government-run health care plan.” Why not endorse and run on this incredibly popular policy?

The answers to these questions lie with the interests of corporations and business groups that back the elites of both parties. If voters can learn to analyze politics from this cynical perspective, they will be less confused and disappointed when their policy preferences are ignored and often contradicted by politicians. They can use websites like opensecrets.org to see what motivates the decisions behind the biggest players and obstructionists in politics. If voters want to elect candidates who are accountable to their beliefs, they should support those who swear off money from federal lobbyists and major PACs. Then, and only then, can we finally reclaim our democracy.

Politics: A Money Game