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
October 28, 2014 -- Updated 1237 GMT (2037 HKT)
Errol Louis says forced to choose between narrow political advantage and the public good, the governors showed they are willing to take the easy way out over Ebola.
October 27, 2014 -- Updated 1803 GMT (0203 HKT)
Eric Liu says with our family and friends and neighbors, each one of us must decide what kind of civilization we expect in the United States. It's our responsibility to set tone and standards, with our laws and norms
October 27, 2014 -- Updated 1145 GMT (1945 HKT)
Sally Kohn says the UNC report highlights how some colleges exploit student athletes while offering little in return
October 26, 2014 -- Updated 1904 GMT (0304 HKT)
Terrorists don't represent Islam, but Muslims must step up efforts to counter some of the bigotry within the world of Islam, says Fareed Zakaria
October 24, 2014 -- Updated 1302 GMT (2102 HKT)
Scott Yates says extending Daylight Saving Time could save energy, reduce heart attacks and get you more sleep
October 27, 2014 -- Updated 0032 GMT (0832 HKT)
Reza Aslan says the interplay between beliefs and actions is a lot more complicated than critics of Islam portray
October 27, 2014 -- Updated 1119 GMT (1919 HKT)
Julian Zelizer says control of the Senate will be decided by a few close contests
October 24, 2014 -- Updated 1212 GMT (2012 HKT)
The response of some U.S. institutions that should know better to Ebola has been anything but inspiring, writes Idris Ayodeji Bello.
October 22, 2014 -- Updated 2101 GMT (0501 HKT)
Paul Callan says the grand jury is the right process to use to decide if charges should be brought against the police officer
October 23, 2014 -- Updated 1619 GMT (0019 HKT)
Theresa Brown says the Ebola crisis brought nurses into the national conversation on health care. They need to stay there.
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 2235 GMT (0635 HKT)
Patrick Hornbeck says don't buy the hype: The arguments the Vatican used in its interim report would have virtually guaranteed that same-sex couples remained second class citizens
October 24, 2014 -- Updated 1630 GMT (0030 HKT)
The Swedes will find sitting on the fence to be increasingly uncomfortable with Putin as next door neighbor, writes Gary Schmitt
October 24, 2014 -- Updated 1632 GMT (0032 HKT)
The Ottawa shooting pre-empted Malala's appearances in Canada, but her message to young people needs to be spread, writes Frida Ghitis
October 26, 2014 -- Updated 0148 GMT (0948 HKT)
Paul Begala says Iowa's U.S. Senate candidate, Joni Ernst, told NRA she has right to use gun to defend herself--even from the government. But shooting at officials is not what the Founders had in mind
October 23, 2014 -- Updated 2208 GMT (0608 HKT)
John Sutter: Why are we so surprised the head of a major international corporation learned another language?
October 23, 2014 -- Updated 2154 GMT (0554 HKT)
Jason Johnson says Ferguson isn't a downtrodden community rising up against the white oppressor, but it is looking for justice
October 24, 2014 -- Updated 1621 GMT (0021 HKT)
Sally Kohn says a video of little girls dressed as princesses using the F-word very loudly to condemn sexism is provocative. But is it exploitative?
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 2006 GMT (0406 HKT)
Timothy Stanley says Lewinsky is shamelessly playing the victim in her affair with Bill Clinton, humiliating Hillary Clinton again and aiding her critics
October 23, 2014 -- Updated 1414 GMT (2214 HKT)
Imagine being rescued from modern slavery, only to be charged with a crime, writes John Sutter
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 1600 GMT (0000 HKT)
Tidal flooding used to be a relatively rare occurrence along the East Coast. Not anymore, write Melanie Fitzpatrick and Erika Spanger-Siegfried.
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 1135 GMT (1935 HKT)
Carol Costello says activists, writers, politicians have begun discussing their abortions. But will that new approach make a difference on an old battleground?
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 1312 GMT (2112 HKT)
Sigrid Fry-Revere says the National Organ Transplant Act has caused more Americans to die waiting for an organ than died in both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq
ADVERTISEMENT