According to Bloomberg, an estimated $10 billion will be spent on the 2016 presidential race. From television ads to travel to staff, those campaigns become massive expenditures that cross the country in ways unimaginable by this country’s first politicians. Of course, no one is arguing that there is something inherently wrong with expensive operations — sometimes they can produce fantastic results as the legitimate voice of the people. However, this can often go horribly astray when money going into politics is not visible.
When people can’t see where their politicians are receiving money from, it becomes impossible for the voice of the electorate to be louder than those of a small few. Money becomes less a tool of free speech and a method of civic participation, and more a reckless exercise of power (or something that concludes and really drives home why large donations take the voices of the electorate and stomp on them). Regardless of your political leaning, the American experiment in democracy has always been about a government being responsive to the needs of everyone.
To reaffirm the idea that government must be willing and able to be the voice of the people rather than the wealthy few, one must begin at home in local politics, where there is less of a spotlight on campaign finance but where there is arguably more of an effect on the electorate (just a reason why people should care). Take Student Government, for example: an organization of elected officials that are supposed to be the voice of the students as liaison to USC’s administration. In my time on the Elections Commission at USC, I noticed a peculiarity in the codes. At present, the codes which govern the student body elections have no mention of campaign finance. While candidates are only allowed to engage in “hard” campaigning for a limited period, there are no rules surrounding the transparency of the election itself. This leaves the door open for a candidate to utilize vast sums of money from anywhere, be they organizations that believe in the message, or groups with questionable histories trying to assert themselves, without fear of repercussion.
Our leaders ought to represent us. Therefore, it only makes sense that legislation be passed in Student Government to ensure financial transparency. At the very least, contribution and expenditure reports for the upcoming election ought to be mandated of all candidates running for executive office. While it would be unconscionable to limit the total amount that a campaign could accept, as people should be free to donate money as they please, I argue it would be reasonable to limit the amount that a single individual or organization could give to a campaign. These limits would work to prevent a single source from asserting their influence unduly on any given election, allowing the people to have their voices accurately and clearly heard, which is the entire point of living in a democratic society. The problems might be complex, but the solutions are available, practical and uncontroversial. Yes, student politics obviously exist on a different plane than federal politics, as we are talking hundreds of dollars instead of billions. However, the implications of campaign finance remain the same: if we want to protect the American experiment in representative and responsive democracy, then we have to ensure that politicians, be they students or senators, are representing everyone, not the limited few who want to donate behind a closed door.