Voter suppression and other strategies : dark money Now that’s a gloomy title. You are probably imagining (as did I when I first encountered the term in my research) scenes that look like gangster movies clips, with rotten politicians given a case full of banknotes in an aerodrome or a warehouse for them to agree unconditionally on the disputable terms of a very rich villain. Sadly, this is not far away enough from the truth. In January 2012, the Republican majority of the Supreme Court thoroughly reformed the financial laws concerning election campaigns, as part of Citizens United vs FEC. As a result, rich individuals, or corporations, can give an unlimited amount of money to support a political campaign, through the formation of Super PACs, and publically support or oppose a candidate (which, with the amounts involved, can unofficially turn into a designation of the candidate who will represent their interest better). The funding of political campaigns was a matter for debate, as far back as 1867, as those laws have been either rewritten, amended or straight up suppressed depending on which majority was in the Supreme Court. This also means that, as well as the other strategies presented in this series, ‘corruption’ is legal. In the Oxford English dictionary “corruption” designs a “dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.” and whereas such blatant misconducts are punishable by law, Mr. Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21 (a nonprofit organization dedicated to campaign reform) declares in the New York Times that it exists nonetheless, in a darker and more subtle form : “The corruption in the U.S. does not stem from officeholders putting money in their pocket. This is systemic corruption of the process itself. When you are dealing with billions and billions of dollars, much of that focused on buying influence, it overwhelms the system, and it is much harder to defend against and maintain representation for ordinary Americans.”. It is completely illegal to bribe voters, but it does not mean they can’t be otherwise. Any billionaire, in order to protect their interest, can join and fund the American Legislative Exchange Council (which is an organization bringing conservative legislators and private sectors representative together) and pressure legislators to draft bills that modify even more Voting Right Acts amendments or any other legislation, to their liking, and all that, without having the FEC batting an eye. For example, ALEC has authored the model law "Voting ID Act", that has been used to enact several local ID-checks laws, which as we saw in the second article of this series, is a very effective way to rig elections. So much for legislative independence. The NRA (National Rifle Association), which is a founding and active member of ALEC has funded the campaign of several candidates in 2016. As it turns out, their financial "help" has paid off: six out of seven candidates for presidential and Senate won. Well-funded campaigns are also usually more successful : they simply have more visibility. Mailed or distributed pamphlets can be massively produced and distributed by paid people, enormous billboards can be rented, TV and radio spots can be broadcast, you can be called directly on your phone to encourage to vote one candidate, and more recently, communication teams can invade social media. In France, the CSA has a strict control of the amount of time allowed to a politician to express themselves on the TV or the radio. The duration of their speaking time must be strictly equal, for “little” or “big” candidates, or be at the risk of paying a major fine. This does not exist in the same extent in the USA : the ‘Zapple Doctrine’ that was founded in 1972 by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) had approximately the same goal as french CSA, but is rarely ever applied nowadays, deemed “too unconstitutional”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsXjeWldTow To find out more about Super PACs and the legislation. To end this series, there is an article by The Guardian that can show you a glimpse of the horror stories lived by average American citizens the day they vote. The Guardian called out its reader on social media to share their misadventures on the 2014 midterms with the #TurnedAway hashtag. Several people promptly responded : In Ohio, a black man who had lived at the same address for 30+ years in Cleveland, owned an ID and always voted, has simply vanished from the local lists. “Surprisingly” his name was in the list of the Board of Election. In Georgia, a parent wanted to introduce his four and six-year-old children to democracy ended up driving over 30 km during rush hour because of unfair gerrymandering. Several more tweets and stories will give you a clear idea of the human consequences of voter suppression. AuteurSouad Takhtoukh
0 Commentaires
Laisser une réponse. |