How to Resist the Influence of Money

            Peggy Flanagan presented herself as the candidate “for the many, not the money.” I’m guessing that appeal played a big role in her surprisingly lopsided win over Angie Craig in this month’s primary. Political spending on elections continues to spiral, and voters are waking up to the problem. The blatant corruption of the Trump regime has done a great deal to heighten awareness.

            AIPAC – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – has become notorious for its part in efforts to sway voters through massive infusions of cash. They have plenty of company. Crypto backers, the tech companies building massive data centers for AI, and fossil fuel companies have all been spending big.

            The striking pattern is how unpopular all of these things are. Voters have soured on U.S. support for Israeli genocide, suspect that crypto is a giant scam, don’t trust tech company claims, and realize that climate change poses an existential threat. So PAC spending increasingly says nothing about what these groups actually want politicians to do for them. Instead, they look for other ways to boost their preferred candidates and disparage their opponents.

            All of this dark money in elections can spread misinformation and disinformation with virtually no accountability. The best way to counter its influence, at least in the short run, is for voters to become alert consumers of political advertising. Learn to distrust.

            As November 3^rd approaches, our mailboxes and screens are going to be swamped. Everyone is sick of it, and you would think that tuning it out would be easy. The advertisers aren’t fools though, and they find insidious ways to grab attention and sow doubt about candidates who aren’t their clients. Don’t bite.

            The first thing to be aware of is the sheer volume of ads, texts, and mailers from a particular candidate. If that much money is being spent to boost their campaign, you ought to consider voting for their opponent.

            Next step is to look for whose paying for the ad. The name will likely be something innocuous that makes them sound like friends of democracy and puppy dogs. Chances are it’s a front created to disguise the actual source. If the ad isn’t paid for by the candidate’s own committee and doesn’t come with the candidate’s approval, you’d be well advised to treat it as garbage.

            Then ask yourself whether the ad is putting forward a positive vision of what the candidate stands for. Campaigns that rely on negative advertising about their opponent or simply spout banalities about their candidate don’t merit your support. Campaigns that stoke fear are trying to manipulate you.

            In the long run, we need to work toward meaningful reform in campaign finance. The Supreme Court has been a huge obstacle, and reforms like term limits for Justices need to be considered. Their Citizens United decision opened the door to the corrupting influence of money, and it needs to be overturned. Support the We the People Amendment that states, “The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.” It would eliminate the notion of corporate “personhood” and make such “artificial entities” once again subject to regulation of their political spending.

            All of that will require some heavy lifting, however, and for now the best we can do is support the candidates who aren’t beholden to shadowy funders. Like Peggy Flanagan.

Paul Harris