Over the past couple of weeks, I have been preparing to write my policy paper and thinking about the HUGE issue of money corrupting our politics. I thought about what actually needs to be done in order to get our political system to a state where it can create real change for the benefit of all Americans. As I have discussed in prior posts, money is the main factor that keeps widely supported policy from becoming law because politicians are supported by the wealthiest of Americans that often stand to gain from current laws.
I consider myself to be a practical person. I like to think through options and only support a wild idea with an incredibly sarcastic tone. I think through all options, do research, think critically, and back my opinions with rational thought and data. So, all of that being said, there is no practical policy that I can write to fix this massive issue. I think we are doomed for the foreseeable future.
Before you jump to conclusions, hear me out on this. Look at what has happened with the gerrymandered districts here in Pennsylvania. Republicans currently hold the majorities in both branches of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. And clearly, the party that controlled the lines of federal congressional districts benefitted from those lines. It is absurd to think that Republicans would actively give up power and pass a map that will definitely give up seats to Democrats.
So instead, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is controlled by Democrats (the issue of elected judges is another topic that angers me but talk to me about that later) made a ruling that the former map violated the Pennsylvania State Constitution.
I get what you’re thinking. “Okay, it happened with congressional districts in Pennsylvania; why can’t it happen with money in elections at the federal level.” The answer to your question is, of course, Donald Trump.
It should be obvious that a law regarding money in politics will never be passed by politicians that use money to remain in power, so that checks out. But the Supreme Court of the United States is a conservative leaning court, with two progressive judges being 79 (Stephen Breyer) and 85 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Anthony Kennedy, a Republican but is often considered to be more moderate than other conservative associate justices, is 81. He has often ruled to uphold the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 that protected abortion rights under the 14th Amendment. He also penned the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges that guaranteed the right of marriage for same-sex couples. These three judges are close to retirement, and if they have to leave the bench, Donald Trump would be given the opportunity to appoint a young, conservative justice who shares Chief Justice Robert’s view of judicial activism. Roberts once said When the other branches of government exceed their constitutionally-mandated limits, the courts can act to confine them to the proper bounds. It is judicial self-restraint, however, that confines judges to their proper constitutional responsibilities.” This court, along with future courts, will not make a ruling to overturn the problem they started with Citizens Untied v. FEC unless Democrats can take back the White House in 2020 and those three justices stay on the bench.
Along with that, this 2018 “blue wave” that people are talking about needs to come to fruition, specifically in the Senate. Theoretically, if Republicans have control of the Senate and a there is an opening on the court in 2019 or 2020, then Republicans will disregard their rhetoric about not putting a judge on the bench in an election year.
These ramblings went on for much longer than I expected, but the point is we have to engage in policy with a clear idea of the political climate and take that into consideration. Government is dirty. DC will always be a swamp. There is no hope, and I should probably change my major from National Security to something useful like Music Education or Theatre.
Works Cited:
“Judges Should Have ‘Limited’ Role, Roberts Says.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 3 Aug. 2005,
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201913.html.
“Current Members.” Home – Supreme Court of the United States,
www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx.
Supreme Court Collection: Opinions by Justice Kennedy,
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/kennedy.dec.html.
I agree that government is dirty, and right when you think it’s going your way, something (or someone) always jumps out and squashes your dreams. I am also a practical person who tries to think about the reality of situations. While I agree that there is limited hope, saying there is no hope may be a bit dramatic, and is almost the same thing as throwing in the towel and declaring defeat.
Unfortunately, Eric, I agree with you. I haven’t been alive for very long so I can’t comment on if political or rhetorical consistency used to be a thing in DC, but it certainly isn’t now. The law of the land is getting and protecting power, and given the advanced age of the liberal SCOTUS justices, we may be looking at a hard-right Supreme Court for the next 30+ years (if Trump continues nominating younger conservatives, and why wouldn’t he). Politicians tend to act to preserve their entrenched power and justify it after the fact. Our only hope: VOTE AND VOTE OFTEN!!
Unfortunately, I don’t know enough on the subject to give you a substance filled reply, but based on what I read, I can say that agree with you. Things are not looking great as of now. But I think I disagree with the fact that there is no hope, because we have recently seen that ANYTHING can happen, and hopefully the next time something unexpected happens, its in our favor.