Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

Is American democracy dead?

By Julian Zelizer, CNN Contributor
April 27, 2014 -- Updated 1203 GMT (2003 HKT)
In the early 20th century, industrial tycoons like the Rockefellers and Carnegies amassed fortunes in railroads, steel or oil. Here, a view of Cornelius Vanderbilt's residence in New York in 1908. In the early 20th century, industrial tycoons like the Rockefellers and Carnegies amassed fortunes in railroads, steel or oil. Here, a view of Cornelius Vanderbilt's residence in New York in 1908.
HIDE CAPTION
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
Income inequality in America
<<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
>
>>
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • A new study shows that the wealthy have far more influence than the average American
  • Julian Zelizer says study raises disturbing questions about power of campaign money
  • If wealthy shape policy, the inequality divide in America will only get worse, he says
  • Zelizer: It may take a constitutional amendment, and state action, to reform system

Editor's note: Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter" and "Governing America." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- American democracy faces a very real threat. The power of money is overwhelming the power of average voters to influence government decisions. While this is an old lament in politics, social scientists are now finding very concrete proof about the damage being done.

The problem revolves around the way in which we fund our political campaigns. Opponents of campaign finance reform are having a field day. Over the past few years, they have watched with delight as the political parties and Supreme Court have slowly eviscerated the Watergate-era campaign finance reforms.

When the Supreme Court issued decisions citing constitutional barriers to the regulation of campaign finance and independent organizations have figured out new ways to influence politicians, opponents of reform proclaim that the system is better off. At a minimum, they argue that money and lobbying has always been part of this nation's politics: There is nothing much to do about it and the republic has survived.

Julian Zelizer
Julian Zelizer

Their arguments ignore the horrendous consequences that the influence of private money has on our democratic system.

The opponents of reform turn a blind eye toward the substantial evidence of how the nation is creating an unequal playing field that leaves many citizens virtually disenfranchised even when they retain the precious right to vote. Policies such as the tax system are skewed toward wealthier Americans, thereby worsening the cycle of inequality from which the nation can't seem to escape. As Elizabeth Warren recounts in her new book, the big banks had overwhelming influence as policymakers handled the crash of 2008.

At the most obvious level, the constant stories about the influence of money and lobbyists fuel public skepticism about the democratic process. The disillusionment caused by the role of money in politics discourages political participation.

But the effects are even worse than we might think. In an academic article that will make heads turn, the political scientists Martin Gilens (Princeton) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern) have found that as a result of our political processes, wealthier Americans have disproportionate influence on the kinds of public policies the government enacts. Average citizens matter, but only when they are in agreement with wealthier Americans. If not, they tend to lose.

Sen. Warren: The game is rigged
Obama: Pay inequality's an embarrassment
The fight to close the wage gap
Oxfam: $110 trillion owned by top 1%
What causes income inequality in the U.S.?

Based on a sizable database of public opinion and a study of 1,779 policy initiatives over 20 years, Gilens and Page report that a majority of Americans have little or no influence on the kinds of policies that the government produces. "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose." Because of the way our system works, wealthy interests have the ability to block changes that they oppose.

Wealthy interests were almost 15 times as likely to obtain their preferences from policymakers on issues like tax policy as were ordinary citizens.

This is the culmination of changes that have been taking place for several decades. The mobilization of business interests and wealthier Americans accelerated in the 1970s after the role of the federal government had expanded.

As Paul Pierson and Jacob Hacker showed in their outstanding book, "Winner Take All Politics," the strengthening and thickening of the organization of the corporate and financial communities in Washington resulted in highly sophisticated lobbying operations and campaign donation techniques that enhanced their ability to influence policymakers.

Over the next few decades, the result was congressional decisions such as regressive tax cuts that favored wealthier Americans (starting with Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cut) and economic deregulations that have favored their interests, such as freeing up the financial sector in the 1990s.

At the same time that wealthier interests were mobilizing to fight against campaign finance regulations put into place after Watergate, presidential candidates in both parties, including George W. Bush (in 2000, for the primary elections) and Barack Obama (in 2008, for the general election), ultimately decided to reject the publicly financed campaign system that had required them to accept spending limits.

The political parties introduced new mechanisms, such as soft money, to get around regulations while the Supreme Court dismantled the 1974 reforms through a series of historic decisions.

One of the most damaging results of these changes has been that the political benefits flowing to those with greater financial means worsens the economic inequality that has become such a defining part of modern times.

These kinds of findings should be shocking to Americans and offer more than enough evidence about the dangers we are unleashing through the continued dismantling of the campaign finance laws and the failure to impose serious regulations on lobbying.

For all the arguments about free speech and the need to compete, we should take a close look at a political system in which most Americans don't have a voice in the process and where, even worse, the outcomes are biased toward certain segments of the nation who can pay to play. This is one issue where the left and right, as well as the slim center, can find agreement.

Given Supreme Court decisions such as FEC v. Citizens United and FEC v. McCutcheon, a constitutional amendment might be necessary if there is to be any possibility of limiting contributions and spending. In the meantime, states might become the central arena for experimenting with new reforms.

Unless reform takes place, Gilens and Page have shown us that the nation is allowing money to slowly undercut the democracy that built America.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
July 26, 2014 -- Updated 1656 GMT (0056 HKT)
Megan McCracken and Jennifer Moreno say it's unacceptable for states to experiment with new execution procedures without full disclosure
July 26, 2014 -- Updated 1728 GMT (0128 HKT)
Jeff Yang says it's great to see the comics make an effort at diversifying the halls of justice
July 26, 2014 -- Updated 1555 GMT (2355 HKT)
Rick Francona says the reported artillery firing from Russian territory is a sign Vladimir Putin has escalated the Ukraine battle
July 25, 2014 -- Updated 2008 GMT (0408 HKT)
Paul Callan says the fact that appeals delay the death penalty doesn't make it an unconstitutional punishment, as one judge ruled
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 2225 GMT (0625 HKT)
Pilot Robert Mark says it's been tough for the airline industry after the plane crashes in Ukraine and Taiwan.
July 25, 2014 -- Updated 1510 GMT (2310 HKT)
Jennifer DeVoe laments efforts to end subsidies that allow working Americans to finally afford health insurance.
July 26, 2014 -- Updated 1533 GMT (2333 HKT)
Ruti Teitel says assigning a costly and humiliating "collective guilt" to Germany after WWI would end up teaching the global community hard lessons about who to blame for war crimes
July 25, 2014 -- Updated 1245 GMT (2045 HKT)
John Sutter responds to criticism of his column on the ethics of eating dog.
July 25, 2014 -- Updated 1302 GMT (2102 HKT)
Frida Ghitis says it's tempting to ignore North Korea's antics as bluster but the cruel regime is dangerous.
July 25, 2014 -- Updated 1850 GMT (0250 HKT)
To the question "Is Putin evil?" Alexander Motyl says he is evil enough for condemnation by people of good will.
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 1803 GMT (0203 HKT)
Laurie Garrett: Poor governance, ignorance, hysteria worsen the Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia.
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 1349 GMT (2149 HKT)
Patrick Cronin and Kelley Sayler say the world is seeing nonstate groups such as Ukraine's rebels wielding more power to do harm than ever before
July 23, 2014 -- Updated 2205 GMT (0605 HKT)
Ukraine ambassador Olexander Motsyk places blame for the MH17 tragedy squarely at the door of Russia
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 1142 GMT (1942 HKT)
Mark Kramer says Russia and its proxies have a history of shooting down civilian aircraft, often with few repercussions
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 1853 GMT (0253 HKT)
Les Abend says, with rockets flying over Tel Aviv and missiles shooting down MH17 over Ukraine, a commercial pilot's pre-flight checklist just got much more complicated
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 1317 GMT (2117 HKT)
Mark Kramer says Russia and its proxies have a history of shooting down civilian aircraft, often with few repercussions
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 1637 GMT (0037 HKT)
Gerard Jacobs says grieving families and nations need the comfort of traditional rituals to honor the remains of loved ones, particularly in a mass disaster
July 24, 2014 -- Updated 1413 GMT (2213 HKT)
The idea is difficult to stomach, but John Sutter writes that eating dog is morally equivalent to eating pig, another intelligent animal. If Americans oppose it, they should question their own eating habits as well.
July 23, 2014 -- Updated 1630 GMT (0030 HKT)
Bill van Esveld says under the laws of war, civilians who do not join in the fight are always to be protected. An International Criminal Court could rule on whether Israeli airstrikes and Hamas rocketing are war crimes.
July 23, 2014 -- Updated 1408 GMT (2208 HKT)
Gordon Brown says the kidnapped Nigerian girls have been in captivity for 100 days, but the world has not forgotten them.
ADVERTISEMENT