ELECTORAL REFORM

‍When Ben Franklin was asked after the Constitutional Convention,"What kind of a government have you given us?" he replied, "A democracy, if you can keep it."

Polls today show increasing numbers of U.S. citizens of all political stripes do not believe their interests are being represented in government. Politicians are held in ever-lower regard and there is growing cynicism about the prospects for changing the way things are. Measures that could greatly reduce the influence of deep-pocket donors and help restore a more functional democracy are many—measures like a ban on “dark money” from anonymous donors and eliminating the legal conduit for unlimited corporate contributions. And to help eliminate politicians’ need for big campaign money, media networks could be mandated to provide free and balanced time for candidates who demonstrate a threshold of popular support. The reality is, such reforms are not likely in the U.S. until enough fed-up citizens get involved to demand real change.

‍Bills to enact such reforms have been proposed many times but fail to pass for three main reasons: 1) Elected officeholders fear losing the deep-pocket donors that help get them stay in office—it’s not in their self-interest. 2) Deep-pocket donors and their lobbyists don’t want to lose the advantage they routinely enjoy in shaping policy. 3) Media networks don’t want to lose the immense revenues they reap from paid political ads.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

In other democracies such as France and a few other European countries, election campaign money from big business, other organized interests and wealthy donors are either not allowed or greatly restricted. Media outlets are required to provide equal time to candidates at no cost—thus eliminating the need for big money. And in France, government funding is available to help candidates reach voters if they demonstrate a minimum threshold of popular support. The result of these measures is that lawmakers are more apt to represent a majority of average citizens, and by some key measures they are making policy that benefits “the many instead of the few.”