I came across this op-ed in the Huffington Post that argued a link between the Citizens United ruling in 2010 that allows unlimited campaign donations by businesses and corporations. The author argues that this ruling has forced many Republicans not in favor of the shutdown to go along with the extremist wing of their party as a result of being obligated to act in their financial supporters' interest. This argument is obviously very biased, but it does utilize logic worth considering. I think this is an extremely interesting case for looking at how domestic politics can have an impact on international relationships. As tomorrow is the date that we will default on many of our loans, and we have yet to see an agreement to raise the debt ceiling (although the day is not yet over, see Senate Paves Way) this is a very serious issue. An earlier post showed that we owe debts to foreign countries, but many other domestic actors as well. Defaulting on our loans will certainly have a negative impact on our economic relationships (the behavior of our Congress has already cast a negative light on us), as well as potentially making us look weaker overall, incapable of running a functioning government. Defaulting will have a greater impact on smaller countries than economically strong ones, and this will breed even more resentment. This shutdown has greatly increased the amount of uncertainty other nations feel about our actions as a whole.
When looking at institutions that may affect international relations, we generally look at electoral structure and the structure of the executive branch in a country. But in this case, the Supreme Court is being criticized for having allowed the further polarization of party politics. This institution's decisions have a much more serious and longterm impact and if the causal link is accurate between Citizens United and moneyed interests controlling Congress we should be very concerned. This perhaps points to the fact that Democracy's institutions for resolving conflict are not as strong as we like to think.
ReplyDeleteSo the Supreme Court would have know problem as to being the blame for the current economic shut, and the last 18 shutdowns that have occurred since ’76. The idea of campaign donations is only a brief solution to this gridlock as opposed to a larger scale solution, when in reality it is extortion. Without any capital, people won’t be able to express themselves, and the Supreme Court will get the outcome they desired, which is a 180 from the democratic processes where capital controls rights and lifestyle.
I don't know how strong a case is for unlimited campaign contributions and polarization within the country. Throughout our political history the amount of polarization of the two political parties has varied, even as the amount of campaign contributions has gone up steadily through time. Attempts to limit the amount of contributions to candidates have been ineffective since there are always new ways to provide monetary assistance to politicians. A better way to keep candidates in check is to clearly see where they are getting their campaign contributions from not just to limit the amount of money that they receive. Also, many of the big contributors to political campaigns have been hurt by the government shut down, which makes it unlikely that their contributions who help fuel the deadlock.
ReplyDeleteI think it is very interesting how the United States has become so separated by these two parties to the point where this gridlock is able to take place. This whole situation is rather unique, however I do not believe the US will default on its loans tomorrow. The structure of the US government, as stated above, is made so that these types of gridlocks are able to be reversed. I expected a much larger role for the Supreme Court in this ordeal because of the structure of the government. But all the questions will be answered in a matter of hours when either things go back to the general status quo, or we default sending us into economic turmoil. Very interesting times we live in.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think the linked article makes a great point about the Citizens United Decision and Congressmen and women being more beholden to large money interests. In the case of the shutdown however, i think that the Tea-Party's specific method of leverage against those in their party who would have otherwise wanted a clean funding bill much sooner is without a doubt tied to the systematic gerrymandering of districts across this country. Recall that the Tea-Party largely used the threat of primary-ing out people who opposed them, something that only works in a district so staunchly republican that a Tea-Party backed member of the GOP would carry it by being even more conservative then the already seated republican they would be replacing. Without districts that were so safe for a staunch republican (or democrat), the threat of funding a nut in your district who will beat you in a primary but flounder in a wider whole state election essentially goes away.
ReplyDeleteI do not necessarily agree that unlimited campaign donations forced many Republicans not in favor of the shutdown to go along with the extremist wing of their party as a result of being obligated to act in their financial supporters' interest. The US has the most expensive elections compared to other countries. Both the democratic and republican party engaged in extremely expensive campaigns. I just believe that the democratic party was more savvy when it came to spending their campaign donations and put the money towards targeting certain demographics in different areas. They were able to frame the election to target a larger demographic such as incorporating African Americans, Latinos, and the youth population. The shut down was based off a polarization between not only democrats and republicans, but a even bigger polarization among the republican party themselves. The republican party is split up into the Tea party and moderate conservatives. Due to the republican party having such a big split in their own party, it was difficult for the republican party to come to a general consensus amongst their party, and also the democratic party. Currently there is a "temporary" resolution to the shut down, but i believe if the republican party can not agree to common norms and consensus amongst their party and the democratic party the shut down will be another topic of discussion in the near future.
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up an excellent point Abby that only examining and scrutinizing the executive branch and legislature leaves out one of the most important aspects of the entire issue. Like you said, the impact of the Supreme Court's decisions have a much more lasting impact on the country as a whole due to its ability to influence policy, the Constitution, and law.
ReplyDeleteLike many others who have commented, I agree it is very disconcerting to see just how far this government polarization and gridlock has gone to the point that the US is consistently coming to the brink of defaulting on its debt. With all this, one would hope, and certainly foreign investors, that the Supreme Court would be able to make a decision to hopefully set the other branches of government straight so that investors need not panic. Unfortunately the polarization within the government has spread even to the Supreme Court. I think it's very safe to say that the United States is going to continue down a path to turmoil and economic ruin if government leaders cannot begin preventing complete and total government shutdown.
Money drives politics. It is a concept that is not new, but the United States has taken it and blown it up like no other country has before us. The two laws Citizens United and the McCain-Feingold Act have perpetuated the government shut down by backing Republicans into a hole; torn by whether to stay true to the ones who will financially get them reelected or to do what is morally right for their constituents. It is obviously not so black and white as I just laid it out, however that breaks it down into a concise argument. The Supreme Courts decisions do hold major weight on the impacts of future domestic, and as we see here, foreign relations as well. I like that you brought up this point because it highlights the downfalls of campaign finance laws and motivations of politicians. The money-driven politics we see in America skews the concept of Audience Cost, as they have a large Winning Coalition but simultaneously a small WC group who they ultimately need financial support from. Politician's are then torn between remaining in office by appeasing both their WCs.
ReplyDeleteMoney in politics is a necessary evil, but there needs to be checks against it. I do not understand when using money to fund a campaign became akin to free speech, but it has to stop. The more dangerous precedent is that of soft money, which has limits on the amount given to a particular candidate, but not the number of candidates, which means one super rich Political Action Committee can change an entire election. We just need to get behind campaign money reform.
ReplyDeleteYea, this shutdown does illustrate some problems that can arise when money and politics are so intertwined. Not to say that this is the only reason behind the shutdown, but this was a very interesting post. I hadn't really considered the financial motivations behind the shutdown in depth; this article definitely highlighted this issue. I think this video is fairly relevant.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151899681508984
In order to restore democracy to this country, money has to be taken out of politics entirely. From lobbyist influencing bills from being passed or not, to corporations investing in the congressional or presidential campaigns; democracy can not exist in its truest form until these practices stop. Though it is unlikely that this will happen in the near future. Both parties are equally to blame, and it will take action outside of congress to combat the trend of increasing investment in politics. Hopefully it does not take something drastic for this change to occur.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIts extremely sad how money and greed is now the motivation for running this country. Our government and many politicians are much more intrigued by the thought of making money rather than running this country the way it should be, aren't politicians selected to do a specific job because the general population feels they are best suited for that position? Money has seemed to become what really runs this country, not those elected to do so.