Must Big Money Remain the Key Decider of Public Policy?

WASHINGTON DC | California billionaire Tom Steyer is headed to Washington. And the $100 million stashed in his back pocket is for sending others to Washington. Steyer and those he plans to support want ensure that the federal government does everything it can to combat “climate change.”

But perhaps Americans are wondering whether the nation’s political climate will ever change. While the weather outside varies, the outlook in Washington is always gloomy.
Politico reports that Steyer’s strategy calls for targeting Senate and governor races in Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida and possibly Pennsylvania. These are key battlegrounds for presidential politics. The $100 million Steyer brings into the equation could make climate change the defining issue in this year’s elections.

But the hedge-fund manager with a social conscience might be willing to lay out even more money. If he does, it would help other individual Democrats who believe that climate change is happening and that air emissions from various human activities are causing it. Those on the short list are Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe.

Steyer also may throw money against the Keystone XL oil pipeline. However, the Democrats which Steyer is backing tend to ignore the injury inflicted on property rights as the long Keystone winds its way through countless parcels between Alberta, Canada and Texas refineries. Instead, Steyer and those of his ilk only focus on environmental issues. By avoiding a more balanced view, Steyer and other liberal Keystone opponents create the false idea that the Keystone’s only opponents are liberals. But that is not true.

What is true is that the wealthy can simply buy the policies and policy-makers they like with the sheer force of money. Especially since the 2010 “Citizens United” Supreme Court ruling, it’s become painfully apparent that government policy is something that some people pay for, not something the majority votes for.

The Super PACs which took root from the seed of Citizens United harness enormous sums to support or fight candidates. But meanwhile, the average person is rendered more and more powerless. Quick solutions may seem elusive. But naming the problem is easy. We live in a nation that still has not figured out how to prevent the affluent from purchasing government policy. Whether we agree with that policy is another matter.

Some say that publicly-funded elections would help because everyone would receive the same relatively modest amount of money with which to campaign. Some even say that outside donations should be minimal to non-existent. But even if that idea wouldn’t fly, it makes sense to look beyond specific cases and see the larger issue. The situation illustrates the old adage that America has the best government that money can buy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1psB3LN15c