With everything going on in the United States these days, it is more important than ever to understand how dangerous it is to have ‘big money’ influencing politics. The top two percent of wealth holders in the US are basically buying off politicians to shape our government and laws in ways that benefit them the most. And, what benefits the billionaire almost always harms the other 98% of Americans in one way or another.
Why is money so incredibly dangerous when it comes to influencing politics? It poses several significant dangers, such as impacting the democratic process, influencing policy-making to benefit special interests, and eroding public trust. Here are some of the key dangers:
- Corruption and Inequality:
- Corruption: Large donations to political campaigns and candidates can lead to corruption. Politicians often feel indebted to their donors and, as a result, prioritize the interests of wealthy individuals or corporations over those of the general public.
- Inequality: The disproportionate influence of wealthy donors can undermine the principle of equal representation. Ordinary citizens with fewer financial resources have less influence on political outcomes, which skews policy-making in favor of the rich. This can only lead to the rich getting richer and the rest of the country becoming poorer.
- Policy Distortion:
- Legislation: Policies and legislation may be crafted to benefit donors, leading to laws that favor specific industries or companies rather than the common good. This can result in regulatory capture, where industries regulate themselves through their influence over lawmakers. We’ve seen this time and time again with big oil companies and other large corporations.
- Public Interest: Important issues that affect the public at large, such as healthcare, education, and environmental protection, might be sidelined in favor of issues that benefit a select few who have contributed significantly to political campaigns.
- Erosion of Public Trust:
- Cynicism: When people perceive that money dictates political outcomes, it can lead to widespread cynicism and disillusionment with the political process. This undermines faith in democratic institutions and decreases voter turnout. There has never been a higher percentage of Americans who have lost faith in the democratic process than there is today.
- Alienation: The belief that politicians are more responsive to donors than to their constituents can alienate citizens and diminish their sense of political efficacy. We see this every day, from our local government, all the way up to Washington DC.
- Barriers to Entry:
- Campaign Costs: High campaign costs can deter qualified candidates from running for office, particularly those who lack wealthy backers. This limits the diversity of candidates and perspectives in the political arena. The average American can’t afford to campaign, but it’s the average American who should be representing our country, not the elite wealthy ones.
- Incumbent Advantage: Incumbents often have easier access to fundraising, which can entrench them in power and make it difficult for challengers to compete, reducing the dynamism and competitiveness of elections.
- Influence on Electoral Outcomes:
- Advertising and Media: Money can buy extensive advertising and media coverage, influencing public opinion and electoral outcomes. This can overshadow substantive debate on policies and issues.
- Political Parties: Parties may prioritize candidates who can raise large amounts of money, sidelining those who might be more in touch with grassroots movements or local concerns.
- Transparency and Accountability Issues:
- Dark Money: Funds from undisclosed sources (dark money) can be funneled into political campaigns, making it difficult to track who is influencing elections and policy decisions.
- Accountability: Without transparency, it is challenging to hold politicians accountable for their financial backers and the potential conflicts of interest that arise.
Mitigating these dangers involves implementing measures such as campaign finance reform, increasing transparency in political donations, setting limits on contributions and spending, and promoting public funding of campaigns to ensure a level playing field for all candidates.
What about the Democratic National Committee? Is the DNC impartial to the candidates it supports?
The impartiality of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in supporting candidates has been a contentious issue, particularly in recent election cycles. Here are some key points to consider:
- Historical Allegations of Bias:
- In the 2016 Democratic primaries, the DNC faced significant criticism and allegations of bias in favor of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Leaked emails suggested that some DNC officials may have been biased against Sanders, raising questions about the committee's impartiality.
- Similar concerns arose in the 2020 Democratic primaries, where some supporters of candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren felt that the DNC and the broader Democratic establishment favored Joe Biden.
- Structural Challenges:
- The DNC's structure inherently presents challenges to impartiality. The committee is made up of party insiders, many of whom have their own preferences and political alliances. This can lead to perceived or actual biases in how resources and support are allocated.
- Superdelegates, who are party leaders and elected officials, have historically had significant influence in the nomination process, which can skew the perception of impartiality.
- Role in Primaries:
- The DNC's role in the primary process includes organizing debates, setting rules for primaries and caucuses, and coordinating with state parties. Decisions about debate qualification criteria, debate schedules, and primary rules can impact candidates differently and sometimes appear to favor certain candidates.
- The DNC's influence over primary rules and schedules can be controversial. For instance, decisions about which states hold early primaries can benefit candidates who perform well in those states.
- Resource Allocation:
- The DNC allocates resources such as funding, data access, and logistical support to candidates. How these resources are distributed can reflect or lead to perceptions of bias.
- Endorsements from key party figures, which the DNC can influence, can also impact the perception of impartiality.
The impartiality of Chris Korge, the DNC Finance Chairman, in supporting candidates has been questioned, especially given his history and actions within the Democratic Party. Here are some key points to consider regarding his impartiality:
- Past Support for Candidates:
- Chris Korge has been a prominent Democratic fundraiser and donor for many years. He has publicly supported certain candidates, which raises questions about his impartiality in his role as DNC Finance Chairman.
- For instance, Korge has been known to support candidates like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in past election cycles. His financial contributions and public endorsements for these candidates can lead to perceptions of bias.
- Role as DNC Finance Chairman:
- As DNC Finance Chairman, Korge's primary role is to raise funds for the party. This involves working with a wide range of donors and stakeholders, some of whom may have preferences for specific candidates.
- While his role is supposed to focus on the financial health of the party as a whole, his past affiliations and endorsements could influence his interactions with donors and candidates.
- Public Perceptions and Allegations:
- During the 2020 Democratic primaries, some supporters of Bernie Sanders and other progressive candidates expressed concerns about Korge's impartiality. They worried that his support for establishment candidates like Joe Biden could impact the DNC's fundraising strategies and priorities.
- These perceptions are often fueled by Korge's previous public statements and actions. This creates a sense of mistrust among those who support other candidates.
Most importantly, in the published book “Sins of South Beach”, the author, Alex Daoud, a convicted felon and first cousin to Chris Korge outlines a series of criminal acts and bribes committed by this billionaire lobbyist first cousin while Daoud was the Mayor of Miami Beach, FL. This book was published in 2006. Since the printing of this caustic account of the criminal acts committed by his first cousin, Chris Korge has never publicly denied, sued or commenced any legal action against the publisher, the promoters or the author of this book.
In addition, there is a documentary in the works related to the content of the tell-all book, “Sins of South Beach”, that will most certainly contain references to the damning allegations against billionaire lobbyist and DNC Finance Chair, Chris Korge. An innocent man would most certainly deny these allegations if they were false. The fact that Chris Korge has not, speaks volumes.
This is a prime example of why big money influencing politics is so dangerous and should, in fact, prompt Chris Korge to resign immediately as the Finance Chair of the Democratic National Committee.
If you agree, please feel free to sign the petition at Change.org demanding the immediate resignation of Chris Korge from the DNC.