Introduction
In today's interconnected world, the role of social media and traditional media has become increasingly significant. As a New Zealander, I have observed how these platforms have contributed to global polarisation. This polarisation has led to confusion, entrenched beliefs, and, tragically, an increase in violence, depression, and suicide.
This is a complex matter, and I'm not an expert in this, which highlights my point even more. We shouldn't have to be investigators or overnight journalists to try to understand this just to know with a sense of trust and certainty that we, as the common people, are not being lied to. I am a common person in New Zealand writing this, doing my best to gather what I can as accurately as I can. I don't want to see this happen in my country.
This blog aims to discuss the current state of affairs clearly and understandably. People need to grasp what is happening around them, as the influence of the media has made it difficult to see a hopeful and positive future. The current lack of clarity and direction is proving to be catastrophic for the human spirit, mind, body, and soul.
By examining the narrowing of democratic contenders in the USA elections, the influence of corporate money in politics, and the ethical challenges faced by current leaders, I hope to shed light on the issues that are affecting us all. It is important to understand these dynamics to reclaim our voices and work towards a more just and equitable world.
The Narrowing of Democratic Contenders in the USA Elections
The 2024 Democratic primary race began with a diverse and crowded field of candidates. However, as the primaries progressed, the field narrowed significantly, leaving Kamala Harris as the primary contender after President Joe Biden withdrew from the race and endorsed her. This outcome has raised concerns about the democratic process and its implications for both the United States and the world.
The Role of Endorsements in U.S. Presidential Elections
In the United States, the process of selecting a presidential candidate involves a series of primaries and caucuses, where party members vote for their preferred candidate. However, endorsements from influential figures, including current or former presidents, can play a significant role in shaping the outcome of these primaries.
The Endorsement Process
Endorsements are a common practice in U.S. politics. When a prominent figure, such as a sitting president, endorses a candidate, it can significantly influence public opinion and sway voters. This endorsement can provide the candidate with increased visibility, credibility, and access to the endorser's network of supporters and donors. In other words, when a well-known person, like the president, supports a candidate, it can make people more likely to vote for that candidate. This support helps the candidate become more popular and trusted, and it also connects them with the president's friends and supporters.
In the case of the 2024 Democratic primary, President Joe Biden's endorsement of Kamala Harris played a crucial role in her securing the nomination. While the endorsement itself does not guarantee a win, it can create a momentum that is difficult for other candidates to overcome.
In the 2024 Democratic primary, the process was somewhat unusual. Initially, President Joe Biden announced his intention to run for re-election and participated in the early primaries. However, after a poor performance in a historically early presidential debate with Donald Trump, Biden faced significant pressure from within his party and ultimately decided to withdraw from the race in late July 2024.
Following Biden's withdrawal, he endorsed Kamala Harris, who then became the primary contender. An online delegate voting process was held in early August 2024, where Harris officially claimed the nomination. While this process did involve delegate voting, it was not the traditional primary election process where voters across the country cast their ballots for their preferred candidate.
This situation has raised concerns about the democratic process and the influence of endorsements from influential figures. While the endorsement and delegate voting process played a significant role, it did limit the direct involvement of voters in choosing the nominee.
Concerns and Implications
The practice of endorsements raises several concerns about the democratic process:
Influence of Power: Endorsements from influential figures can overshadow the voices of ordinary voters, leading to concerns about the concentration of power within the party.
Perception of Fairness: When a sitting president endorses a candidate, it can create a perception of bias and unfairness, potentially undermining the legitimacy of the primary process.
Impact on Diversity: Endorsements can narrow the field of candidates, limiting the diversity of perspectives and policy proposals available to voters.
As a New Zealander observing this, I have developed uneasy feelings towards leadership in general. It is breaking down our trust and security globally to see this happening. While endorsements can provide valuable support to candidates, it is essential to ensure that the voices of all voters are heard and that the democratic process remains fair and transparent.
Marianne Williamson, a Democratic candidate in both the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, has been vocal about the challenges within the Democratic Party. She has highlighted the influence of corporate money and the party's shift away from its traditional values as significant issues. Williamson's campaign focused on economic reforms, including universal healthcare, tuition-free higher education, and a minimum wage increase.
The Problem with Limited Choices
Many voters felt that their preferred candidates were sidelined by the party establishment, leading to a sense of disenfranchisement. This lack of genuine choice can undermine the democratic process and erode public trust in the political system which is exactly what we see happening.
Global Implications
The outcome of the U.S. elections has far-reaching implications for the rest of the world. The U.S. plays a significant role in global politics, and its leadership can influence international policies on issues such as climate change, trade, and human rights. A democratic process that lacks genuine choice can undermine the credibility of the U.S. as a global leader and weaken its ability to advocate for democratic values on the world stage, thus resulting in a negative butterfly effect.
The Elephant in the Room: Gaza Conflict
One of the most glaring issues that neither Biden, Harris, nor Trump have taken a strong ethical stand on is the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Despite the significant humanitarian crisis and evidence of genocide, including the ruling from the International Court of Justice, none of these leaders have plainly stated that the violence must stop. This lack of leadership on such a critical issue leaves the world searching for a leader who will take a definitive stand against the atrocities occurring in Gaza.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States. AIPAC works to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by advocating for policies that support Israel. It is one of the most influential lobbying organizations in Washington, D.C.
AIPAC has both a traditional Political Action Committee (PAC) and a Super PAC. The traditional PAC, known as AIPAC PAC, can donate directly to candidates' campaigns but is limited to a maximum contribution of $5,000 per election. On the other hand, the Super PAC called the United Democracy Project, can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against federal candidates. However, it cannot donate directly to candidates' campaigns.
In summary, AIPAC's traditional PAC and Super PAC both aim to support pro-Israel candidates, but they operate under different rules and limitations regarding contributions and expenditures.
The fact that AIPAC operates both a traditional PAC and a Super PAC is appalling and blatantly wrong. The traditional PAC, limited to a maximum contribution of $5,000 per election, still allows for direct financial influence on candidates' campaigns. However, the existence of the Super PAC, the United Democracy Project, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against federal candidates, is even more concerning. This setup enables a disproportionate level of influence on the political process, undermining the principles of fair and transparent elections.
This is not rocket science, I refuse to sugarcoat any of this. The ability of Super PACs to flood the political landscape with vast sums of money drowns out the voices of everyday voters and skews the democratic process in favour of those with deep pockets. This blatant manipulation of the system erodes public trust and security, as it becomes increasingly clear that the interests of a few wealthy individuals and organizations can overshadow the collective will of the people.
Such practices are a stark reminder of the need for comprehensive campaign finance reform to ensure that the democratic process remains fair, transparent, and representative of all citizens, not just those with the financial means to exert undue influence.
The search for leadership is primal and ingrained in our psyche. Without it, we start losing hope. Losing hope is a very real experience that dampens our human spirit and causes physical discomfort.
The Citizens United Ruling
The Influence of Corporate Money in Politics
The landmark Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), fundamentally changed the landscape of American politics. The ruling allowed for unlimited election spending by corporations, equating campaign finance with free speech. This decision has had profound implications for the democratic process in the United States.
The Citizens United ruling essentially opened the floodgates for corporate money in politics. By allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns, the ruling shifted the balance of power away from individual voters and towards wealthy corporations and special interest groups. This has led to the rise of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. The influx of corporate money has made it increasingly difficult for candidates without substantial financial backing to compete, effectively narrowing the field of viable candidates.
Super PACs, or "independent expenditure-only committees," are political organizations in the United States that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates. Unlike traditional political action committees (PACs), super PACs cannot donate directly to candidates or political parties. Instead, they spend money independently on activities like advertising to influence elections. This allows them to have a significant impact on the political landscape by using large sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals.
Elon Musk is involved with a super PAC. He has funded America PAC, which spent around $200 million to help elect Donald Trump. Musk's involvement in politics through his super PAC has had a significant impact on elections and political campaigns.
At that time, social media was still in its infancy, with platforms like Facebook and Twitter just beginning to gain traction. Elon Musk, who would later become a significant figure in the tech world, did not yet own a social media platform.
Fast forward to 2024, and the political landscape has changed dramatically. Social media has become a dominant force in shaping public opinion and political discourse. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and Facebook play a crucial role in how information is disseminated and consumed. Elon Musk's acquisition of X in 2022 added a new layer of complexity to this already intricate landscape.
Musk's ownership of X, coupled with the 2010 legislation, has created a unique and unprecedented situation for the 2024 US elections. The combination of unlimited campaign spending and the immense influence of social media has amplified the voices of a few powerful individuals and organizations, often at the expense of everyday voters. This dynamic has led to concerns about the fairness and transparency of the democratic process.
One of the most significant challenges posed by this situation is the potential for misinformation and disinformation to spread rapidly on social media platforms. With Musk's control over X, a platform with millions of users, the ability to shape narratives and influence public opinion has never been more pronounced. This has raised questions about the role of social media in elections and the need for stricter regulations to ensure a level playing field.
Moreover, the sheer volume of information and the speed at which it spreads can create an environment of confusion and distrust. Voters are bombarded with conflicting messages, making it difficult to discern fact from fiction. This has led to a growing sense of disempowerment among the public, as they struggle to navigate the noise and make informed decisions.
The 2024 election is a stark reminder of the need to address the challenges posed by the intersection of campaign finance and social media. As we move forward, it is important to consider reforms that promote transparency, accountability, and fairness in the democratic process.
The Problem with Corporate Influence
The influence of corporate money in politics is problematic for several reasons:
1. Erosion of Democratic Principles: The overwhelming influence of corporate money undermines the democratic principle of "one person, one vote." When corporations can spend unlimited amounts on campaigns, their voices drown out those of ordinary citizens.
2. Policy Influence: Corporations and wealthy donors often expect something in return for their financial support. This can lead to policies that favour corporate interests over the public good.
3. Lack of Accountability: The rise of "dark money" in politics—funds from undisclosed sources—makes it difficult to track who is influencing elections and how.
Elon Musk and the Free Speech Platform
Elon Musk's ownership of a major social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), adds another layer of complexity to the issue of corporate influence in politics. Musk has positioned X as a platform for free speech, but his ownership and use of the platform raise significant concerns.
Social media platforms have become powerful tools for shaping public opinion and political discourse. By controlling a major platform, Musk has the ability to influence the flow of information and the visibility of certain viewpoints. This can have a profound impact on elections and public policy.
The Dangers of Concentrated Power
The concentration of power in the hands of a few wealthy individuals, like Musk, is dangerous for several reasons:
1.Amplification of Bias: Musk's personal views and biases have significantly influenced the content that is promoted or suppressed on the platform. This can lead to a skewed representation of public opinion and the marginalisation of dissenting voices. For instance, we witnessed the amplification of the baseless claim that immigrants were eating their pets. This unfounded suggestion had a devastating impact on people's lives and businesses. Immigrants were unfairly harassed and abused, had their businesses destroyed, and were forced to relocate their families to escape the spreading of hate. This is not just an abstract issue; it is real, and it affects all of us deeply. It hurts you, it hurts me, it hurts them, and it hurts us all.
2. Manipulation of Public Opinion: By controlling the algorithms that determine what content is seen by users, Musk can manipulate public opinion to favour certain candidates or policies.
3. Lack of Accountability: As a private company, X is not subject to the same transparency and accountability standards as public institutions. This makes it difficult to hold Musk and his platform accountable for their actions.
Political Campaign Financing: New Zealand vs. United States
New Zealand
1. Spending Limits: New Zealand has strict spending limits for political parties and candidates. For example, in the 2023 General Election, political parties are capped at a maximum of $1,388,000 (including GST), plus $32,600 per electorate contested by the party. Candidates can spend up to $32,600 on election advertising.
2. Donations: There is no upper limit to political contributions made to parties and/or candidates which are not anonymous. However, donations over $20,000 from the same donor must be declared within 10 working days. Anonymous donations are limited to a maximum of $1,500.
3. Transparency: Political parties are required to file annual financial returns that disclose the total amount of donations received. The return must include the full name and address of non-anonymous domestic donors whose donation exceeds $5,000 and non-anonymous overseas donors whose donation exceeds $50.
4. Public Funding: The Electoral Commission allocates money to parties for the broadcasting of election programmes and election advertising. For the 2023 election, a total of $4,145,750 has been allocated.
United States
1. Spending Limits: The United States does not have strict spending limits for political campaigns. Candidates can spend unlimited amounts of their own money on their campaigns. Campaign spending has risen steadily, with the 2020 federal election campaigns costing nearly $14 billion.
2. Donations: The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) limits the amount of money individuals and political organisations can give to a candidate running for federal office. For example, individuals can donate up to $3,300 to each candidate per election. However, the Citizens United ruling allows for unlimited election spending by corporations and unions through Super PACs.
3. Transparency: Candidates for president, Senate, and the House of Representatives must report the names of individuals and political organisations contributing to their campaigns and the amounts. However, the rise of "dark money"—funds from undisclosed sources—makes it difficult to track who is influencing elections.
4. Public Funding: Public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits.
Summary
The political campaign financing systems in New Zealand and the United States differ significantly. New Zealand has stricter spending limits and more transparent donation reporting requirements, while the United States allows for unlimited spending by corporations and unions through Super PACs, leading to a significant influence of money in politics. These differences highlight the varying approaches to campaign finance regulation and their impact on the democratic process.
It's not just about US citizens understanding this, people all around the world need to be aware because this is affecting all of us. I don't want to see my people or my country go down the same road as the US.
Conclusion
The dominance of money and media in U.S. elections has led to a political landscape where only a few candidates can realistically compete. This concentration of power marginalises diverse voices and limits the choices available to voters. The influence of corporate money and media has created an environment where the interests of a few wealthy individuals and organisations overshadow the collective will of the people. As a result, the 2024 election has culminated in only two viable candidates, reflecting the significant impact of these factors on the democratic process.
"In a world where information is power, the voices of the many must not be drowned out by the few. Democracy thrives when every voice is heard, and every person feels represented."
As someone working in a marginalised industry, I often find it challenging to have my voice heard and my work recognised. The influence of dominant voices and platforms can overshadow the contributions of individuals like myself. If you appreciate my efforts and want to support my work, please consider contributing through the "Feed The Writer" link. Your support helps me continue to bring valuable insights and perspectives to the forefront.
Thank you
Your thoughtful professional
Adele Sterling
Comments