Dollarocracy How the Money and Media Election Complex Is Destroying America

Dollarocracy

Nichols and McChesney (2013) write about election spending and the negative effect that it has on democracy and governance in America in their book Dollarocracy: How the money-and-election complex is destroying America.. They have divided the book into central themes, including the concept of privilege, spending by the very wealthy, advertising and the role of the media in the election machine, finally arriving at some suggestions for reform to restore balance to the democratic system of the United States.

The book opens with an explanation of one of the core principles that underpins their arguments, that America is a society driven by class differences. Those with privilege consistently seek to use that privilege to enhance it. The authors make the case that such practices at this point are so rampant that "the United States is now rapidly approaching a point where the electoral process itself ceases to function as a means for citizens to effectively control leaders and guide government policies." Special interests -- primarily those of the richest Americans and corporate entities -- are now driving public policy debate, influencing public opinion and dictating the interests of government. "The moneyed interests are confident," they note, "that even in the face of temporary setbacks that they will be able to continue their initiative because they are well served by the rapid decline of the news media as a checking and balancing force on our politics" These ideas form the core of the arguments that Nichols and McChesney make throughout the book.

The first chapter of the book outlines how many Americans are dissatisfied with the political system. The prompt is the Occupy protests, and the widespread public support they engendered. Yet, those protests essentially went nowhere. The authors note that support for government policies is generally eroding and that this is the result of substantial structural challenges that the nation faces. The ranks of independent voters, dissatisfied with the major political parties, is a growing body of Americans. They note in particular the reality that the voting districts have become so gerrymandered that most are uncontested. The result is that elected officials ultimately do not represent the people -- they serve those who put them in place. The people have no real say because few districts are even competitive. The power of elections and democracy is the focal point of the beginning of this book, as this sets up the premise, which is that the erosion of democracy is dangerous to America. Strengthening democracy is what gives power to the American people.

Interests have long been among the most politically active. In particular, government programs and policies that were designed to serve the people while keeping privilege in check have been under constant attack since at least 1980. The authors contend that a series of political setbacks for the wealthy classes between 1969 and 1972 laid the foundation for this shift in policy, as business groups in particular felt compelled to become more organized and coherent in their political activism in order to counter the gains that were made by the ordinary Americans, which the business community felt were coming at their expense in the form of laws on things like civil rights, minimum wage, and environmental protections. Indeed, a survey of laws that strengthen worker rights shows that nothing of significance has been passed since the 1970s, until perhaps the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Advances in electoral planning led many in the major political parties to realize that a large number of American, especially among the poor and minorities, were averse to voting and therefore not a part of the electorate. The response since that point has been to marginalize that group. Those who do continue to vote are the subject of intense efforts to win votes.

Campaign finance is a major issue, the authors note. Elections have become business, with the role of government now framed even in the media as a facilitator to business rather than a position where ideals are upheld. With Citizens United, big money could now be invested in the election cycles in order to reap and even bigger return should the right candidate win. Politicians court major campaign financiers because of the high cost associated with campaigning, and that means the wealthy get the ear of the future President to an extent that ordinary citizens will never have. This occurs at all levels of electoral politics.

The author save scorn as well for the media. They note that the media are complicit, because they are part of the machine. The media benefits significantly from political advertising, so it has an interest in maintaining the system. Further, the media has all but ceased the task of journalism in favor of the pursuit of revenues. Similar to how it affects politicians, this pursuit of money puts the media in thrall of the machine as well. The media has become a major contributor to the problem.

The ideas presented by Nichols and McChesney are echoed by other analysts of this situation. There is a special amount of attention paid to the Citizens United decision, which Nichols and McChesney argue assets the fallacy that money is speech. This decision has essentially opened the door to unfettered campaign finance, without even limits stipulating that the source of the money needs to be identified. Shadow money floods into elections. A candidate can be supported by incredible amounts of money and the people who are voting for that candidate might be asked to vote without even knowing who is bankrolling that candidate? There is little hope for democracy when candidates are little more than fundraisers and they answer only to those who provide this funding.

Nichols and McChesney also focus on some of the ways that the current system can be counteracted. They note for example that the Internet still holds promise. They find that the present digital environment still has enough democracy necessary to allow alternate voices, but that there is expected to be a shift there as well. They argue that "all the pathologies of the current campaigning will be coming through our iPhones" and that this is why special attention must be paid to digital communications before this happens. Indeed, the Internet's ability to allow for fact-checking among other things is one of the reasons cited as a check in the Citizens United ruling. For democracy, this provides a clue as to the best approach -- to use digital technology to fight back.

Most of the literature on the subject of media, money and elections comes from those who are concerned with the trends in American democracy. There is a sense perhaps of pessimism in the literature because so many things have gone against democracy. There is a positive feedback loop at work, where those with money spend their money in order to have even greater ability to make money. Those without money and power have little more than a singular vote to assert themselves, yet it is getting to the point where they have no real reason to vote because for most Americans the outcome in their district is never really in doubt -- at best their vote might influence the Presidency.

The literature also allows for thought as to the way forward. The way forward is not obvious, as these are significant structural challenges. As Nichols and McChesney note, there are solutions that can be enacted but those solutions require political will. There is no political will when the politicians currently in power are the beneficiaries of the polices in question. Further, when the media is also a beneficiary, the media has no incentive to bring an issue to the fore. A good example was a proposal to offer free airtime to political candidates, which would reduce the need for politicians to rely on campaign funding in order to win election. This never got anywhere with either the media industry, and because that is a powerful lobby, with the elected officials either. The result is a broken system that defends itself from ever being fixed.

Yet there must be a way forward. Votes are still important, which is why so much money being spent on election cycles. There are still several states that hold the balance of power in Presidential elections and there are still some seats in Congress that could go either way. These are the few, the chosen, the lucky -- the Americans whose vote still means something and who still have political power. For them, there is still opportunity, and those who wish to repair the system must work to leverage that power to bring about the needed overhaul of the system.

One area of concern for Nichols and McChesney is the Internet. They note that the major Internet firms tend to hold incredible market power. They cite Google, which dominates both search and mobile operating systems, and they cite as well Amazon, which dominates online retail. There is less dominance in online media, but even this might change. Traditional media outlets -- especially newspapers -- are struggling to earn revenue online. This has two major consequences. The first is that they fight for every dollar, and cannot pass up an opportunity to help their beleaguered bottom lines. The second is that they set up paywalls. The problem with this is that if all major media outlets set up paywalls, consumers will be forced to have brand loyalty, thereby reducing the exposure that they will have to the different ideas. Lesser sites might still remain free, but may be viewed with skepticism by voters. The major news sites remain the most trusted, so they need to be free in order to maintain some semblance of political dialogue. Sites dedicated to alternate voices also need to build their credibility so that they can serve as a mainstream counterpoint to the media industry -- sites that are off the mainstream will simply not have the necessary reach.

Another issue that was raised in the book was that of Big Data. Big Data is expensive but powerful, and it is one of the most important marketing tools of our time. One thing about Big Data and marketing is that it will inevitably be used to identify the key swing voters. We already know, roughly, where they live. The next question is who they are and how can they be reached, and what messages will be effective with them.. These are questions that big media and big government are working towards solving. Those who wish to improve the health of our democracy are going to need to utilize approaches that can counter this. It is interesting to see how the trends that already exist in the American political sphere are going to be escalated, when policies work with the media to become more adept at reaching the specific few million Americans who hold the balance of political power. Those who see the manipulative plutocratic system for what it is are unlikely to have the same ability, and this threatens democracy going forward.

The problem with these realizations is that the entire system is simply a positive feedback loop. The richer and more powerful corporations and the wealthy become, the more wealth and power they will accumulate. Yet, this has occurred in the past and there are solutions. The people did push back at some point. They became better education about the critical issues and sought to compel change. This took a massive depression to truly spark reform after the gilded age, and this past recession probably represented a failed opportunity. One can certainly hope that hubris of the privileged will inevitably lead to their downfall, but with the amount of data available today and the number of powerful actors at stake, such a scenario is unlikely. News media, remember, will simply minimize any of the issues or mistakes that are made, and spin away the dreadful consequences that affect working class America. The sheer number of Americans who have been convinced to vote against their best interests highlights that this can be done. Because the media drives the agendas, the media needs to be involved to drive issues like electoral finance reform.

In their coverage of the issues, Nichols and McChesney touch upon a lot of things that are spot on. A critical mind can see how systems work and there is strong evidence of a system at work here. The connections that the draw between the different interests and the perpetuation of the system are powerful. Yes, rulings like Citizens United make it worse, but reform goes far beyond repeal of that noxious decision. There first needs to be recognition that there is a dollarocracy, plutocracy, whatever name you give it. As the adage goes, "money talks," and something else walks. If Americans do not want money speaking for them, then they need to take greater control over their political power. First, those who do not vote need to vote. One of the things that the Obama campaign did effectively was to convince African-Americans to vote, many of them for the first time. By bringing in new voters, the balance of power can be shifted to places that have not been previously identified as such. This is to the benefit of democracy, because nobody is fighting for these votes right now.

The authors note that the failures of the system are evident in the gap between the desires and needs of the American public and the feeble or nonexistent efforts of elected officials to address those efforts. Even still, the public and many politicians are being distracted by wedge issues like attacks on women's rights, the scandal of the day over at Fox News, and the dog and pony show about health care -- as if whether the site was down today actually matters in the long run. If the point is to make a vote meaningless and reduce the power of the franchise, then what we are seeing out of Washington illustrates quite clearly how this is happened. Consider the obstructionism in the senate and the vote that the Democrats needed to change Senate rules so that Republicans could no longer hold up Presidential nominees. Why did this need to happen? Because there is incentive to break the system. A fractious system where elected officials do not represent the interests of the people -- like any constituent cares about the head of a random government agency -- is a system that people distrust and refuse to vote for. More American simply become disenfranchised over time. Even all those new African-American voters, if they do not have an African-American candidate would they bother to vote? There is not much incentive for most Caucasians to vote, let alone historically disenfranchised groups.