Campaign finance deform

Five hundred thirty-six people determine the future of 314,323,885 U.S. residents, which is our population as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 5:17 p.m. UTC on Friday. That’s an elected representation ratio of 0.00017 percent.

In 1941, the beginning of World War II, the U.S. residential population was 133,402,471. Our elected federal officials were 96 senators (Hawaii and Alaska were not yet admitted to statehood), plus the president and the same 435 members of the House. So there were a total of 532 elected officials to represent the population, at a ratio of 0.0004 percent.

We have roughly the same number of elected federal officials, with 135 percent more people in the United States.

The representation ratio has dropped to less than half of what it was at the beginning of the most critical challenge to the existence of the United States (and many other countries). This would be disconcerting as a trend by itself, but if you add that election campaign financing has returned to where it was in 1907, the concentration of influence and control in our country is reaching super-saturation. Very few elected people affect the lives of millions, and they are elected through spending money that is given to them for the purpose of getting elected. There is no explicit quid pro quo, of course. But it’s hard not to see that influence is brought to bear, especially in the House where representatives never stop active campaigning.

In 2008, the U.S. Federal Election Commission reports that almost $1.7 billion was spent on the election, for all parties and candidates. This year, the projections are to meet or beat that level of spending. In 1907, Theodore Roosevelt was so concerned about the undue influence that wealthy campaign donors could have on elected officials that he signed into law the Tillman Act, which prohibited corporate contributions to political campaigns.

The Federal Corrupt Practices Act followed in 1910, then the Hatch Act, the Smith-Connally Act and the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. All were aimed at reducing corruption and undue influence on elected officials stemming from campaign contributions. In 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act further restricted campaign contributions and enhanced disclosure requirements, and it created the Federal Election Commission to track and report campaign financing amounts and sources, and to provide investigative support for allegations of campaign finance violations.

Then between 2007 and 2010, three cases paved the way to opening the campaign finance gates again, culminating in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, heard by the Supreme Court and resolved in favor of the plaintiff. The country returned, a century later, to the same condition of influencing political careers through campaign financing support that Teddy Roosevelt sought to eliminate. Roosevelt, and many in the country at the time, saw corporate support of political candidates a threat to the ability of elected officials to properly govern. Roosevelt and Congress passed the Tillman Act to reduce the undue influence on the small number of people who made decisions for millions of people. Citizens United effectively wiped out a hundred years of campaign finance reform.

We in the United States tend to look down our noses at the corruption we see in developing economies, such as India and China, where bribery is lubrication in the economic machinery. We pride ourselves on our laws and values, and the penny-ante bribery of developing economies is indeed much less prevalent in the United States. But in the board rooms and congressional hallways it is not only alive and well, but it’s also now apparently supported by the Supreme Court.

So think of it: Our population has grown 135 percent since 1941. Our elected representative ratio has been cut 50 percent. And we have returned to that time when votes and influence were purchased with financial support for aspiring politicians. Both parties and all political candidates are essentially forced to participate. It’s not possible to win an election without spending as much or more than the other candidate, if only to stay even on “face count,” the number of times one’s smiling mug is exposed to the voting public. Repetition, more than content, of media exposure is a key to getting elected.

I cannot wait for the presidential debates. At least here we will be able to evaluate our candidates on their abilities to take in data, think fast on their feet and present a plausible response, rather than their ability to raise hundreds of millions of dollars. The leverage of influence, by campaign donors in one direction and politicians deciding our future in the other, has never been higher. The stakes are gargantuan.

Sewitch is an entrepreneur and business psychologist. He serves as the vice president of global organization development for WD-40 Company. Sewitch can be reached at sewitch1@cox.net.