Why Not Us?

Following the 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, American politics has been characterized by the spending of vast and ever-growing sums of money. We live in a country that has seen a $2 billion presidential campaign, a country that a former president believes has become an oligarchy. Knowing this, it is easy, even obvious, to call for some type of campaign finance reform.

The most immediate responses in the Democratic Party have been calls to remove the problem, overturning Citizens United by constitutional amendment. While this seems the neatest solution to the problem, it is not the only one being put forward. Harvard’s own Lawrence Lessig proposed the Citizen Equality Act of 2017, which would include sweeping electoral and campaign finance reforms, and though his presidential bid seems a far-fetched prospect, he has pointed out that a constitutional amendment is even more unlikely. Part of the danger of Citizen’s United is it raises the threshold for becoming a serious candidate, allowing wealthy elites to act as gatekeepers for the ballot. Three candidates this election cycle have successfully circumvented the gate: Bernie Sanders and Larry Lessig by collecting small sums from many donors, and Donald Trump by financing himself.

It is easy to get discouraged. If our country’s best hope is either a constitutional amendment or the long-shot presidential candidacy of a Harvard professor, perhaps we cannot truly fix our broken system. Sooner or later, something similarly far-fetched may in fact be necessary. It is possible, however, that this is not the case. The American people seem, almost by accident, to have stumbled onto a different solution, one that recognizes that the majority of Americans are not wealthy individuals or members of well-funded interest groups, and we are still a country ruled by the majority of voters.

Frustration with our political system is palpable in the United States, and it starts with the growing feeling of irrelevance among individual voters. In a country where campaign donations by wealthy individuals, corporations, super PACs, and the like easily reach into seven figures, what hope does the average person have of influencing an election?

The answer, as evidenced by post-2012 political campaigns, seems to be quite a lot. In the early part of the 2016 presidential election cycle, candidates who base their campaigns on separation from the establishment have been remarkably successful. From 2008 on, President Obama has been accused many times of being a socialist. In 2015, Senator Bernie Sanders, self-proclaimed socialist, is a serious candidate for the Democratic nomination, even passing Hillary Clinton in some polls. Larry Lessig set out to raise $1 million in small donations by Labor Day, promising to pass sweeping electoral and campaign finance reforms and then turn the presidency over to his future running mate. Lessig met his goal a day early, without huge donations by wealthy donors (but with $30 from me).

Even Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has touched on the issue of campaign finance. While many may accuse him of using wealth to influence American politics, what better person is there to highlight such problems than Trump? What better way to point out the frequency of influence-buying than to have a buyer tell his story? Trump is everything wrong with American politics, and he is not averse to demonstrating that himself.

The way Americans can save ourselves is by refusing to sell and remembering who we are. Candidates from outside the paradigm of American partisan politics, such as Sanders, Lessig, or (though it pains me to admit it) even Trump, can upset the system even if they do not win, by inspiring citizens to become voters, and voters to become candidates. Candidates farther from Washington’s establishment and closer to average citizens can not only fight more effectively for average citizens’ interests, but inspire those citizens to fight for themselves. Air time, media coverage, campaign resources, and the like may be for sale, but our individual votes are not.

Come next November, let us use those votes to take our democracy back.

Thomas Huling ’17, a Government concentrator, lives in Pforzheimer House.