Besides bringing to light problems within our state government,
the recall election raised a variety of questions regarding the
electoral process. First and foremost is the issue of how campaigns
are financed.
In the recall election, the leading candidates each spent about
$10 million, proving that elections are as much about money as they
are about issues. In fact one of the major reasons for the recall
was the perception that Gov. Gray Davis cared more about raising
funds from special interests than running the state.
And, the problem is not confined to state-level politics. At
UCLA, individuals on slates hoping to get their candidates elected
to Undergraduate Students Association Council offices spend
thousands of dollars on their campaigns. It appears that even UCLA
student elections are at least partially money-driven. Clearly,
there is a need to strengthen campaign finance reform bills, expand
regulation of political campaigns at the state level, and reform
election regulations at the university level.
All the candidates who received
substantial support in the recall raised millions of
dollars in campaign money. With 135 candidates ““ though
quite a few of them could not be taken seriously ““
it speaks volumes about our current political system that to do
well in a political race one must have millions
to spend.
In the 2002 gubernatorial race, when Davis was reelected by a
narrow margin, he again spent millions ““ as he did in his
1998 election. California senatorial and earlier gubernatorial
elections have followed similar patterns: The candidate who wins is
generally, though not always, the one who spent the most money.
This trend is very destructive because it permits large
corporations and financially powerful special interests to
excessively influence the political process. For example, largely
because of their lobbying power through contributions to
Davis’ campaigns, prison guards received pay raises, while
many other industries were being cut. Similarly, Indian tribes,
having donated millions to Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, would likely
have enjoyed a continuation of tax-free status for their casinos
had he become governor. Republicans also draw funding from a number
of favorite lobbies which, as a result, receive frequent support
from their friends in government.
But because candidates rely so heavily on donations for campaign
funding, the political process is undermined. The fact that
millions of people are harmed by pay increases for prison guards
while other programs are being cut and neglected is an example. The
interests of the few are receiving a greater voice than the
interests of the many. Certainly, when our country was founded,
some of the Constitution’s framers envisioned having a
variety of competing factions and interests in order to prevent the
dominance of any one faction. However, having a pay-as-you-go
system of campaign finance is certainly very far from what they
would have imagined.
While it may seem that only national and state politics are
affected by the scourge of campaign contributions, even student
government politics at UCLA are affected by financial concerns. One
only need take a look at all the glossy flyers and other outreach
and advertisement methods that are used by various slates and
candidates during USAC elections each May to realize how
financially driven the campaigns can be ““ even when
candidates have many issues to discuss.
Because USAC money is not used to back either slate, candidates
must raise their own funds. Typically, because individual donations
are few and far between, candidates are forced to pay out of pocket
for their campaigns. To offset the cost, slates band together and
pool their resources. For example, in the 2002 USAC elections, both
Students United for Reform and Equality and Students First!
predecessor Student Empowerment! spent over $1,000 on elections.
But this practice, while practical, only serves to ensure that
slate-affiliated candidates have an economic ““ and thus
competitive ““ edge over any independent candidates. It also
forces candidates to band together when they might otherwise remain
independent.
With this in mind, I believe the USAC Elections Board should
agree to either strengthen existing funding regulations or fund all
candidates. The California government ““ as well as the U.S.
government ““ should also examine a similar system of public
financing of campaigns, and must severely limit the ability of
corporations and “soft money” contributions ““ an
issue that will be before the Supreme Court very soon.
If such tests do not pass constitutional muster, we must revise
them or attempt to amend the Constitution. As drastic as it sounds,
the current situation warrants such measures, as special interests
are financing elections, and money is the only means of being
heard. The voices of ordinary citizens are drowned out by the ring
of cash registers as votes are bought and sold. That is completely
unacceptable, and it must stop now.
Bhaskar is a third-year political science student. E-mail
him at sbhaskar@media.ucla.edu.