In today’s political climate, integrity and identity matter more than ever. Funding a political campaign is a tall order, and a lot of candidates turn to money from corporations, PACs or the insanely wealthy. Running a grassroots campaign and refusing donations from large organizations is increasingly seeming like a viable alternative, as the idea of not being bought out seems to resonate with voters quite a lot.
In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both ran on the platform of populism, the idea that “the people” are morally good, and “the elite” are morally bad. It’s an idea rooted in the history of the U.S., and a philosophy of empowering ordinary people. While Trump and Sanders ran campaigns that were vastly different in terms of politics and finance, their messages were of similar sentiments: the establishment is broken, and the power must be returned to the common people.
A candidate’s values are by no means entirely reliant on where their money comes from, but the impact of this cannot be ignored. Politicians are motivated by the desire to stay in power, make money and represent their constituents. However, representing constituents can sometimes take a back seat in legislative decisions, when large amounts of money are thrown into the mix.
Take the recent debate about the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) net neutrality regulations. In March of 2017, Congress voted on whether the existing pro-net neutrality rules should be repealed. The rules weren’t at all perfect, but according to a poll by Mozilla, only 33% of adults over 18 in North Carolina supported repealing them. Furthermore, support for the concept of net neutrality is at 75% in North Carolina, which is consistent with the sentiment in the US as a whole.
If this is the case, why did North Carolina’s senators, Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, support repealing the regulations? They would argue that they disliked the regulatory approach and would have preferred a natural, free-market solution, but that argument holds no water when considering just how little competition there is in the U.S. telecommunications industry. By definition, free market solutions do not work when the market is comprised of one or two companies in an area. However, regardless of their opinion on “regulatory approaches,” shouldn’t they have an obligation to represent their constituents?
The way I see it, their decisions are almost certainly based on contributions from the telecom industry. Burr has received $58,500, and Tillis has received $41,220 in some way from those in the telecom industry. They have been bought out by a group that doesn’t represent the interests of people in our state. When only a third of adults in North Carolina dislike the regulations, there should not be this level of support for a repeal. This is simply unfair; we should not have this problem.
There is hope, though. Very recently, a new face of grassroots politics emerged in news all over the country: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In the democratic primary for New York’s 14th district, Ocasio-Cortez beat out long-time incumbent Joe Crowley, a move that shocked the Democratic establishment. Her campaign and its success has energized people all over the country to demand politicians do better.
Her campaign budget was significantly smaller than Crowley’s. While his campaign relied on massive donations from large groups, the majority of Ocasio-Cortez’s funding came from small (less than or equal to $200) individual donations.
Not only did this make sense given her identity as a democratic socialist, but it also made her seem all the more authentic to voters. Her message was one of helping individuals from her district and rebelling against the establishment. By avoiding massive funding from corporations, Ocasio-Cortez’s message and platform has kept its integrity, and quite a lot of people got behind her campaign.
Compare this to Representative David Price, the current incumbent in North Carolina’s 4th district. While Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign relied on PACs for about one percent of funding, Price received over half his funding from PACs, and less than 10 percent from small contributions.
Not all voters are on a level playing field. Big organizations, corporations and wealthy individuals can give so much and influence our politicians more than the average voter can. Because of this, I am far more trusting of a candidate that avoids “big money” compared to one that welcomes it. There is far less of a chance that grassroots candidates are bought out. When voting now and in the future, it is crucial for all of us to consider how candidates are funded before pledging support.
