The Problem is Washington
Two weeks ago, over two million people took part in the biggest demonstration in Washington D.C. since the Vietnam War to demand substantive change from Congress. I find this outpour of support for gun reform incredibly assuring. It shows me that in a time of need, people will stand up and fight for what they believe in. Yet I find that this movement has been somewhat misguided.
Many people like to blame ‘American exceptionalism’ as the reason why we don’t have stricter gun control laws. However, as polls show, almost all Americans want some tighter regulation. A recent Vox poll found that 389 out of 435 districts in the U.S. support an assault rifle ban, and 374 out of 435 districts do not support proposals to make it easier for people to get concealed carry permits. A Gallup and Marist poll conducted before and after the Parkland shooting shows a notable increase in support for gun control across the U.S.
Yet in the one-and-a-half months since the massacre in Parkland, Florida, there has been no major initiative in Washington.
Yet in the one-and-a-half months since the massacre in Parkland, Florida, there has been no major initiative in Washington. In fact, in more than 20 years there hasn’t been any significant gun reform at all.
America, the problem isn’t you, it’s Washington.
To understand the problem, we need to look back to January 2010. The Supreme Court had just ruled on Citizens United v. FEC to overturn decades-long regulations concerning financing of federal campaigns. The Court ruled that, under the First Amendment, the government can’t limit independent funding to political campaigns. The court went further in 2014 when it struck down the overall limits on the sum an individual can donate to any candidate. The court argued that money and the ability to spend money constitutes expression of “free speech;” thus curtailing the money an individual can spend is an infringement of his or her First Amendment rights. Before, any given individual could only donate approximately $50,000 in Congress. Now, they can donate $24 million.
The dissenting Justice Breyer wrote, “If the court in Citizens United opened a door, today’s decision may well open a floodgate.”
This change in precedent has been compounded by the fact that campaigns have become incredibly expensive to run. In her 2006 senatorial re-election campaign, Hillary Clinton spent $49 million dollars. Her salary as a senator would have only compensated her with just under $1.2 million for her past six years in office. She would still need another $48 million to run her campaign.
According to OpenSecrets.org, a non-partisan non-profit that compiles public information on campaign finance, Clinton raised more than $60 million from various donors over the 2006 fiscal year. Many include corporations such as Citigroup which donated a total of $272,610 in small increments by its staff.
And that’s not necessarily a bad thing—there have been large sums of money in politics for a long time. What is crucial is how much of it came from a single donor. Citigroup, Clinton’s largest donor during her 2006 election, only amounted to 1/300 of her campaign donations. That meant that no single donor could financially influence the candidate in any significant way.
With the 2014 Supreme Court ruling, special interests are at a rise in Washington. Donors can contribute far higher percentages to individual candidates and hold a bigger sway in their decision-making, especially in poorer districts. Clinton is an extreme case—she represented New York, one of the wealthiest states in the Union. Most average Senators only raise about $10 million during campaigns. That, however, makes them even more likely to be influenced, as smaller budgets mean each donation counts that extra bit more.
This leads to what the esteemed MIT professor, Noam Chomsky, calls the vicious cycle of politics. With each election, the rich increase their influence in Washington by pressuring Congress to approve legislation, which will increase their wealth (new tax code, anyone?), and then reinvesting that money back into politics, increasing their influence further. By doing so, corporations and wealthy individuals elevate their own say in politics while limiting the voice of the normal electorate. According to one extensive study done in 2014 by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page of Northwestern University and Princeton University,“Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”
Where does that leave us with the gun debate? The lack of gun regulation isn’t the cause of a problem—it’s a symptom.
Income inequality, class immobility, rising drug prices, incarceration rates—they aren’t problems. They are symptoms of a failing political system—a system which sells itself as a democracy, but really is turning into an oligarchy of the rich.
Adam Smith, in his book, The Wealth of Nations, wrote, “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people seems in every age of the world to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”
His words ring as true today as they did in 1776 when he wrote them and this great nation was founded. It is time that we heed his warning, and return this nation to those who founded it: the people.