American political parties burn through campaign funds at an astounding rate. A nuclear arms race of rallies, aircraft and (above all) advertising between Republicans and Democrats and their associated political action committees has turned election campaigns into a multibillion dollar business. All that money has to come from somewhere, and it could hardly be raised from the general public. Corporations, lobby groups and the uber-rich are courted by both main parties as their money is essential to winning elections.
In the 1970s, Congress voted through legislation to curb the worst excesses of this system, which gives formidable political influence to a small group of people. The logic was, if both parties had to raise funds from a broad coalition of donors, they would be impossible to buy. I’m sure some of the organisations and individuals who write seven figure cheques to political parties have no ulterior motive. But most do not give that kind of money without expectation of some benefit in return. Why else would Democrats and Republicans alike be so feeble in their defence of the American people against corporate excesses?
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court struck down one of the last planks of the 1970s legislation. The overall cap on donations to political parties at $3,000,000 per year has gone, as judges voted 5-4 that the law breached the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech. Following the Citizens United case, in which limits on spending by political action committees were lifted, this marks the descent of American politics into “one dollar, one vote”.
Freedom of speech is a noble idea, one that could not be further from the shady, corrupting nature of big money politics.
If the Establishment wanted to, they could impose a European-style party funding system tommorow. Tight limits on campaign expenditure and individual donations would be introduced, whilst political action committees would be regulated too. The multibillion race for advertising slots would be replaced with a balanced allocation of free party election broadcasts. Both parties would continue to have equal exposure, but with the difference that they both spend in the tens of millions rather than the billions. If the establishment were determined to clean up politics, they could do this. If the law violates some right-wing judges’ interpretation of the Constitution, then it could be amended- with cross party support, that can be done easily.
But the truth is, the parties do not sell themselves to the highest bidder reluctantly, as an unpleasant necessity of staying in the electoral game. The majority of America’s high level politicians are content with the status quo, and will allow their country to drift further under undemocratic influence if left unchecked. It’s not a plot, but it’s a trend that we’re all vaguely aware of.
Vague concern won’t solve it, though.
The Political Idealist 
What a terrible indictment of a nation that seeks to impose its view of what constitutes democracy on many other nations as a basis for being left to self determination. Sadly this makes our own rather tawdry and tainted system appear in a good light, as we wait by our computers for the outcome of the Maria Miller investigation.
Things are pretty bad if the British political system looks transparent and corruption-free by contrast!
It looks to me that Miller is clinging on, hoping for a some backing from the investigation findings, but the media and her enemies in the party (any minister who pushes through same-sex marriage can’t remain popular with Tory backbenchers) “scent blood”. There won’t be any peace until she resigns, regardless of the investigation findings.
Although I agree that political funding in the United States is abysmally undemocratic and in need of comprehensive reform and regulation, altering the constitution would require such broad support that there is virtually no prospect of such support being achieved in the foreseeable future.
You state that ‘if the law violates some right-wing judges’ interpretation of the Constitution, then it could be amended- with cross party support, that can be done easily.’ As much as I wish this were the case, it simply is not. For the United States Constitution to be amended, a two-thirds supermajority in favour of an amendment is required in both the House and the Senate. If this great challenge is overcome by some political miracle, the amendment then has to be ratified by a three-fourths supermajority of the state legislatures for it to become part of the Constitution. The problem of achieving such broad support for an amendment is exacerbated by the fact that the party political system in America is far looser than is the case in European democracies, meaning that agreement within the Democrats and Republicans is far from certain – individual disagreement and fierce factionalism would also have to be overcome.
The American Constitution is a textbook example of a deeply entrenched codified constitution which is immensely difficult to amend – something other countries and supranational unions should take note of in structuring their own constitutional procedures to avoid gridlock and constitutional stagnation which prevents progress and societal, political, and constitutional evolution.
OK, maybe I got a little carried away! I was aware of the “dual lock” system for approving constitutional amendments, but forgot about the tendency of US politicians to be more independent-minded than their British peers.
Sooner or later something will have to be done about the inflexibility of the Constitution- the strongest constitutions evolve with the societies they govern. I can see many aspects of the US Constitution becoming antiquated now- imagine how out of date it could become by the year 2276! Eventually there will be changes, but they won’t be as easy as I thought.