A few weeks ago, I got a letter from Tammy Baldwin’s 2018 reelection campaign. The mass-printed flyer outlined Baldwin’s progress in the Senate so far and her future goals; most of which I agreed with. To me, she seems like a fair candidate and it’s likely that she will get my vote.
However, as I reached the end of the letter, I was taken aback when Tammy asked me to donate $10, $20 or $35 to her reelection campaign. I stopped reading, laughed and threw the letter in the direction of the trash.
Thirty-five dollars?! No way! I am a full-time college student at a world-class university (slight flex), I wait tables three nights a week so I can pay rent, buy food and fund the lavish lifestyle that I have so frivolously developed.
I’m a college kid, not a super PAC, with $35 I could buy a 36-pack of Keystone, five McChicken’s and still have almost enough to pay seven cents for every piece of printed paper.
Why should I sacrifice my hard-earned money so that Baldwin can make Republican attack ads and pay those annoying bell-ringers that I pretend not to hear? Since when has voting not been enough to fulfill my civic duty?
So I went on with my frivolous existence and left my civic duty crumpled on the floor near the trash until the next day, when headlines announced a $1.5 million ad campaign against Tammy Baldwin by the Concerned Veterans Alliance, a branch of the political advocacy network headed by Charles and David Koch, multi-billionaire conservative figureheads who have had their thumbs on the balance of our elections for years.
The Koch brothers- who control Koch Industries, the second largest privately-owned company in the U.S.- use their immense wealth and vast advocacy network to shift the results of elections in their favor.
They fund campaigns of their allies and attack their opponents with hours of TV ads that warp public opinion. They use their advocacy groups, like the Concerned Veterans Alliance and Americans for Prosperity, to promote policies that will be good for their interests.
They have bought into a legal loophole that effectively shapes our government, and they are only getting started.
In January, the conservative political network run by the Koch brothers announced it would spend an unprecedented $400 million during the 2018 midterm elections, a big jump from their modest contribution of $250 million for the 2016 elections.
This is not good news for Tammy Baldwin. As one of ten Senate Democrats running for reelection in a state won by Donald J. Trump in 2016, her seat is a natural target for Republicans hoping to paint the nation blood red in 2018.
And as the first openly gay person elected to the Senate, the target on her head gets even bigger.
As of last November, Baldwin already had more money spent against her than all other incumbent Democratic Senatorial candidates combined, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
She has a tough fight ahead of her, and I wish her all the best, but still I remain hesitant to spare my beer money to a cause that is so drastically lopsided.
I am not saying that big donations are characteristic only to Republicans; on the contrary, rich Democrats spend just as much supporting their own interests and attacking their opponents.
What is lopsided is the power that the super-rich have in choosing our representatives compared to the powers of the individual citizen, who in a true democracy should have the power.
If I were to donate, my $35 would be little more than a teardrop on the cheek of Baldwin as she stands in a torrential downpour of big donor opposition.
My money, my vote, my beliefs are nothing compared to the influence that millions of dollars can buy. So what’s the point of contributing?
The point is the ideal of democracy itself. Unless we want our politics to be determined by the mega-rich, we the people ought to contribute financially to a cause that we support.
Like voting, donating to campaigns gives us citizens a type of representation in a campaign that we hope will promote our beliefs. It is a kind of financial democracy where more money equals more influence.
However, the problem remains that those with the most money can easily drown those who do not have expendable income. We as citizens will not be truly represented until there are some sort of regulations on campaign donations.
But the people have always had strength in numbers. In 2016, Bernie Sanders proved that it is possible to fund a campaign on small donations from many people. In theory, a world where elections are funded, promoted and decided by all people makes sense.
It is possible for us to fight back against big money in politics, but it may require all of us to sacrifice a few McChicken’s for the greater good of our democracy.
Peter is a junior majoring in journalism and English. What are your thoughts on money in political campaigns? How do you think money has affected politics in Wisconsin? Send any questions or comments to us at opinion@dailycardinal.com.
