I have long thought that the main reasons behind our inept and corrupt politics is short terms of office, leading to a constant need for campaign funds and continuous voter manipulation and deception. I asked Chat-GPT about this.
Question
American politics is corrupt. Legislators follow the money. Legislators manipulate the public dishonestly. Legislators' need to be re-elected overwhelms all other considerations. Can you explain how the Constitution and standing law has resulted in this disaster?
Chat-GPT
The perception that American politics is corrupt and overly influenced by money is rooted in several factors, many of which can be traced to structural elements in the U.S. Constitution, court rulings, and the political system that has evolved over time. Here's a breakdown of how these constitutional and legal factors have contributed to this situation:
1. Campaign Finance and the Role of Money
The Constitution's First Amendment guarantees free speech, which has been interpreted by the courts to include spending money in politics. In particular, the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) significantly shaped the political landscape by holding that corporations, unions, and other organizations have the same rights as individuals to spend money on political advocacy. This decision opened the floodgates for Super PACs and other dark money groups that can raise and spend unlimited amounts on elections, often with little transparency.
Effect: This has led to a system where politicians must constantly raise large sums of money to stay competitive, and as a result, wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups exert outsized influence over political decisions. Legislators often feel beholden to these interests, which leads to policies that favor the wealthy or well-connected over the general public.
2. The Need for Re-election and Short Election Cycles
The Constitution sets House of Representatives terms at just two years, meaning that representatives are almost always campaigning or preparing for the next election. Senators have longer terms (six years), but they, too, spend considerable time and resources on re-election campaigns. The short cycle encourages legislators to prioritize immediate political survival over long-term policy goals.
Effect: This dynamic makes politicians more focused on short-term popularity and more susceptible to pressures from donors and lobbyists, who can provide financial support or threats of funding opposition. Since re-election requires significant resources, legislators are incentivized to align with powerful groups that can help them secure campaign funds.
3. Gerrymandering and Safe Districts
The Constitution gives state legislatures the power to draw congressional districts, which has led to the practice of gerrymandering—manipulating electoral boundaries to create "safe" districts that heavily favor one party. Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their voters rather than the other way around, reducing electoral competition.
Effect: In safe districts, incumbents face little challenge from the opposing party, so their real concern is a primary challenge from within their own party. This dynamic often pushes politicians to appeal to more extreme elements of their base or to interest groups that hold sway in primaries, reducing the incentive to compromise or govern for the broader public.
4. Lobbying and the "Revolving Door"
The Constitution protects the right to "petition the government," which has helped foster the growth of lobbying as a legitimate activity. Over time, lobbying has become an industry in itself, with professional lobbyists (often former politicians or staffers) using their connections and expertise to influence legislation.
Effect: Lobbyists often represent large corporations, industry groups, and wealthy interests, creating an environment where legislators are frequently in close contact with those who can fund their campaigns or provide lucrative post-political careers. This "revolving door" between government and the private sector undermines public trust and creates a perception (and often reality) of corruption.
5. The Electoral College and Minority Rule
The Constitution establishes the Electoral College for presidential elections, which gives disproportionate power to less populous states. This has led to situations where presidents can win office without winning the popular vote, which creates a system where the preferences of a minority of voters, often from more rural and less diverse regions, carry greater weight.
Effect: This structure can incentivize politicians to cater to narrow interests that are over-represented in the system, rather than crafting policies that reflect the will of the majority of the population.
6. Supreme Court's Role in Political Decisions
The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret laws, and over time, several decisions have directly affected the role of money and influence in politics. Beyond Citizens United, cases like Buckley v. Valeo (1976) equated spending money with free speech, further entrenching the role of money in elections.
Effect: These rulings have made it difficult to regulate campaign finance in a way that could diminish the influence of wealth in politics, leading to a system where money speaks louder than the voices of ordinary voters.
7. Weak Political Parties and Candidate-Centered Elections
The U.S. has a relatively weak party system compared to other democracies. The Constitution does not mandate or regulate political parties, and as a result, elections have become more candidate-centered. Political parties often function more as fundraising machines than as organizations with cohesive policy platforms.
Effect: Individual candidates must raise enormous amounts of money to fund their campaigns, further entrenching their dependence on wealthy donors, special interest groups, and Super PACs.
Conclusion: The Structural Impact
While the U.S. Constitution was crafted to balance powers and prevent the concentration of authority, its provisions—combined with judicial interpretations—have contributed to a political system where money plays a central role, re-election drives decision-making, and special interests often dominate public policy. These dynamics foster a perception of corruption, as legislators are incentivized to cater to those with financial influence, and the need for constant campaign funding can lead to decisions that prioritizes short-term gains over the long-term public good.
======================= End of Chat-GPT ==================================
A Solution Exists
Much longer single terms of office
No need for re-election campaign.
No need for $millions of political money (after winning office once).
Politicians might even think about the welfare of the people instead of themselves.
Limitations on political money
Limit political donations to $100 per person per election.
No PACs or similar organizations to aggregate money and gain the power to corrupt.
This is nearly impossible to accomplish. It will have to wait until the USA gets an inspiring leader able to put such changes through, against the will of politicians and moneyed interests. Two presidents in the past did make some great changes, although insufficient: Teddy Roosevelt and FDR. Changes could be made effective for future officeholders only, to neutralize opposition from present officeholders. Moneyed interests would still viciously try to stop it.