Hasen’s argument on equality
Hansen tries to answer the question of whether this small majority should be allowed to affect the political process through their influence and money during campaigns. In his view, not a single person should have immeasurable influence over the political process than another just because they have a fat bank account. He argues that for change to be effected, reformers have to earnestly look into many veiled complexities. He further demonstrates that positive results of such a result might only be visible after a long period and through tough struggle.
The past few elections in America have been deemed the most expensive in the countries historical past. Money seems to be behind the access to power and influence. A small group of elite donors is allegedly the contributors of free-flowing funds during campaigns. They then influence the entire political process. The democratic process has as a result been accused of being corrupt. Voters only cast their votes as a way of exercising their First Amendment rights without much trust in the democratic process.
In his book, Hasen gives a detailed explanation of how we reached such a point. Over a decade ago, the Supreme Court did away with the restrictions sited on political donation. The 1970s saw the court remove sections of a post-Watergate reform law that regulated the amount any person could incur in employment in a single election campaign. This action of the court made the strategy used by reformers to regulate political spending invalid. Influential and rich personnel were at an advantage when it came to influence campaigns.
Hasen, accounts and examines the election rules encounters from the year 2000. With an unbiased outlook, he analyses the rising cases of lawsuits that are connected to elections together with charges of voter fraud and the reduction of public confidence in just results. He goes ahead to expound why elections in the future will have more disputes that the already occurred ones. The reasoning behind this because of the rise in discordant, inaccurate allegations that are intensified by media.
In the presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore that happened in 2000, only several hundred votes in Florida was the difference between the two candidates. The results of the elections depended on 25 votes from Florida accompanied by more than a month’s legal battle. Ever since that incident in Florida, America has experienced multiple election litigations with allegations of voter suppression and fraud. As a result, such accusations have weakened public confidence. Nowadays, campaigns are armed with multiples lawyers to tackle the most likely litigations. It is, therefore, reasonable to agree with Hasen’s explanation of the urgency in election reforms. Such reforms ought to be prioritized and geared towards demanding the attention of diligent citizens together with their elected representatives.
The book contains many discussions on that are challenges the reader reconsider some reforms. Such is the rethinking of standard liberal and conservative aspects when campaign financing reforms are concerned. For instance, Hasen explains that the reasoning behind the protection of corporate speech is inconsistent with the stand conservatives normally have on the issue of foreign contributions. In consideration of Justice Kennedy’s argument in Citizens United, the protection of corporate speech is essential since it is of high importance that citizens get ‘the right and freedom of determining for themselves the speeches and the speakers that are worth their attention’. Then the question arises why free argument put across by foreigners ought not to be considered.
In the same way, the book highlights a unique treatment towards the hitches that are faced by progressive reformers while trying to juggle between commitment towards political equality and safeguarding against the press that offers considerable political power to the owners of the media houses. Thus the book jogs the mind of its readers on important facets of their positions. Nevertheless, the issue that is given more weight in the book is the equality focused justification for reform.
Clearly, equality just like corruption is a complex concept that can be deliberated in various ways. The argument that Hasen raises is that the public is undeniably interested in “equality of inputs.” He explains that such an ideal necessitates a structure whereby every voter contains roughly comparable political power in the policymaking process. This is one of the ways to object to the numerous levels of individual spending funded by elite citizens. On the surface, the idea of equality is attractive. Furthermore, why would one citizen have more political power when compared to another?
However, when we input a more detailed analysis of Hasen’s argument on equality, there arise some considerable concerns on the correct way of understanding the shortcomings of inequality in campaign financing. From a more specific outlook, equality of resources fails to differentiate between the sources of unequal political impact and the types of political influence. Because of these reasons, I do not believe Hasen’s argument on equality of candidates has as much weight to argue the case for reform.