Spreading the Wealth

As the president of Common Cause, I have a deep interest in the features of our democracy that make it more or less responsive to the public. But I also have a long professional commitment to poverty eradication – particularly ending the poverty that kills.

So I want to look at the ways these two issues connect – how features of our political system contribute to the problem of poverty in this country.

As you know, the United States is not an equal society. By historical standards and as compared to other industrialized nations, the United States has an exceptionally high level of economic inequality.  America has enjoyed a profound increase in productivity and wealth during the last three decades – through innovations like the internet and our increasingly globalized economy. Yet, as our economy has grown our government has slowly abandoned the policies aimed at providing economic opportunity and mobility for those who need it the most.

As we all know, most Americans will accept a degree of economic inequality, but political inequality is a different matter. In fact, the notion that all Americans should be “considered as political equals” goes to the heart of our national identity. The danger is that this growing economic inequality in America will lead to corresponding political inequality.

This is the unfortunate reality in America, and one we need to fix. Public policies in a variety of areas are actively contributing to the deepening division of our society, economically and politically, between the haves and have-nots. A wealth of research and scholarship shows the disparity that exists between the levels of responsiveness of our democratic system to the preferences of different economic classes.

Why?

Let me first say that it is not unreasonable to expect elected officials to be more responsive to individuals or groups that are politically active versus those who are not. Political activity and participation can be measured in a variety of ways in our political system. The most basic, of course, is voting. Not surprisingly, voting rates steadily decline as incomes decline. “Nearly nine out of 10 individuals in families with incomes over $75,000 reported voting in presidential elections while only half of those in families with incomes under $15,000 reported voting,” reports to the U.S. Census Bureau.

But that’s not the whole story. According to American Political Science Association (http://www.apsanet.org/section_256.cfm), “only 12 percent of American households had incomes over $100,000 in 2000, but 95 percent of the donors who made substantial contributions were from these wealthiest households.” According to the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org), only 0.35 percent of adults in the U.S. gave more than $200 to a political candidate in 2006. And only 0.08 percent of adults gave more than $2,000. Obviously, only individuals at the upper end of the income distribution can afford to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a political contribution.

Unfortunately, in the U.S., effective political activism means having the disposable income to make political contributions most families cannot afford. It also gives a disproportionate amount of power to special interest groups with the resources to make large contributions every year.

The result is a feedback loop whereby the preferences of the lower- and even middle-income groups are not reflected in public policy, leading to disillusionment with our political system.  This disillusionment helps explain the lower voting rates at the bottom of the economic ladder, further tipping the scales in favor of the wealthy.

While there is no silver bullet that will solve the problems of economic and political inequality in this country, it seems clear that there is room for improvement in our political system with regard to its responsiveness to the preferences of low- and middle-income Americans.

Moreover, it is not unreasonable to think that if our political system did not require political contributions from individuals and special interests, but instead publicly financed elections, elected members would be more responsive to the preferences of low- and middle-income Americans who cannot afford to make large political contributions. Nor is it unreasonable to think that if this system had been in place for the last thirty years, the U.S. would not be as economically and politically unequal as it is today.