Silven 1 Lara Silven Bernhardt Section 114 The Threat of Minority Factions in Modern Democracy James Madison introduced

d revolutionary theories regarding factions and their affects on democracies. His arguments were valid and groundbreaking during his time; however, today they are not as relevant. Madison didnt believe that minority factions are a notable threat to functioning democracies, yet they have become a primary influence on modern voters because of their monetary contributions in campaigns. Madisons arguments against minority factions are not as applicable today because minority factions have become a legitimate hazard to the success of our government. Madison dismisses minority factions as being a valid threat. This argument is not as relevant today because of the influence that minority factions have on representatives. Specifically, as in the words of Michael I. Meyerson commenting on Madisons Federalist Paper 10, We still have factions today; we just call them special interest groups (Meyerson 165). This is a concern because if people are choosing candidates based on ads that are developed by biased interest groups, then the wrong people are being elected. According to Madison, the people should be trusted to elect the right candidates: [] the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to center on men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters (Rossiter 77). With this in mind, during Madisons time, outside media influences created by interest groups were not a problem, so the voting population had little beyond merit, character and platforms to base their voting decision on, unlike the modern voting population. In consequence, if the wrong people are elected, then the government is not running properly or up to its full potential. A functioning democracy needs admirable representatives to

Silven 2 act ethically on behalf of the people. In addition, Madison claims that minority factions only need to be regulated by the republican principle. This is not applicable today because voting can only regulate minority factions to a small extent. Minority factions have such a large role today because they directly fund candidates and their campaigns. In order to vote out the influence of the faction, the representative that is supported by them needs to be voted out. This becomes complicated because it is unlikely that citizens will vote out a candidate solely based on their interest group affiliation. Each candidate has other things working for and against them, so things beyond group attachment influence a voters decision. Additionally, interest groups fund candidates representing every political party in the nation. This means that no matter which candidate and party is voted out, the remaining candidate is still going to have an interest group backing and supporting them. In other words, it is not a matter of voting out minority factions altogether, but more a matter of which faction is going to be voted out and which faction is going to remain and have political influence. There is no way to entirely rid of interest groups in politics solely by exercising the republican principle. Additionally, Madisons republican principle does not have the same affect as it once did because of the lacking participation of American citizens today. Citizens do not have the same confidence in the system to vote out representatives that are supported by minority factions. During campaigns, candidates make promises that are very moderate in order to appeal to a wider group of voters. This means that it is harder for voting citizens to decipher between candidates platforms and promises beyond those that come with their party association. Campaigns are not only based on the candidates merit and platforms but are now based more so on the candidates ads and campaign earnings. This means that voters opinions are not as pure

Silven 3 as they once were because of all the outside influences. As stated by Lydia Miljan in her composition, Distracted Voters, The answer lies in the agenda setting theory. [] Even though the media might not have a direct effect on elections- telling audiences who to vote forthey nevertheless set the public agenda and influence what people talk about by giving primacy to some issues over others (Kirtz 80). This is further complicated by the fact that interest groups play large roles in determining what issues and policies are put on the agenda behind closed doors. No citizen has the power to regulate this, so the danger of interest group agenda setting needs to be taken more seriously. If the interest groups have enough power to influence what policies are considered behind the scenes, then they need to be managed more seriously. Altogether, interest groups need to be regulated in order for the voting citizens to have confidence in the representative system and in order to have adequate leverage on who is able to introduce policies on the agenda. Also, further regulation of minority factions through legislation is complicated. In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was formed on the basis of setting new limits on soft money campaign contributions and developing regulations of the use of issue advocacy ads. On the contrary, in 2009, the Supreme Court case of Citizens United versus the Federal Election Committee supports the influence of interest groups in funding candidates. The case concludes that corporate funding in candidate elections cannot be limited because it is in violation of the First Amendment to do so. In fact, Citizens United vs. FEC entirely reestablished the corporate contribution limits set by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Not setting regulations for campaign contributions made by corporations is critical because it allows too many outside interests to join in on political decision making who do not have the best interest of the people in mind. Specifically, there is no explicit detail that limits the contributions of foreign corporations

Silven 4 in supporting candidates. Citizens should be concerned by the idea that companies in countries that hold interests in conflict with those of the United States can take part in American politics and have a say in determining those who run our nation. Government regulation of campaign contributions needs to be clearer and more adequate in controlling campaign contributions. Furthermore, corporations are protected under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to make unlimited contributions to whom they choose in campaigns and elections. Specifically, corporations are granted this allowance because they are held to the same regulations as citizens because they are considered to be such. In other words, corporations are judged and held to the same rules and standards as any ordinary citizen. Because of this, corporations have the same equal right to free speech as any person living in the United States. With this classification, corporations are protected under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act because money is seen as a form of speech. This means that limiting the flow of money is limiting the corporations say and opinion in the campaign. Communicating opinions requires money in modern American politics, and corporations, being entitled to the same rights as citizens, are at liberty to voice their opinions in the form of campaign contributions. However, this argument is limited on the basis that all citizens are entitled to an equal right to speech. If money is a form of speech, then not all citizens have the ability, and therefore right, to an equal right to speech. If every citizen had the ability to donate large sums of money to their favorite candidate, then the candidate pool would equalize and voting would be based on merit, character, and platforms again. Unfortunately, this is not possible while campaign contributions from citizens are not regulated since the distribution of wealth in the United States is varied drastically. In fact, the majority of the wealth is held among top corporations and a limited number of wealthy individuals. If these corporations and individuals have more resources, are

Silven 5 they entitled to more of a right to speech in the form of money? According to the Constitution, the ruling document of the nation, then no, they are not. Corporations should not be held to the same rules as citizens when considering soft money in campaigns because the distribution of money works against equality. Minority factions are a real threat to a functioning democracy. They influence elections and set agendas, and in doing so, are able to block legislation working against them. Regulation against minority factions, and more specifically, interest groups, needs to be managed more efficiently in order to ensure a properly operating government for the people, by the people.

Silven 6 Clinton Rossiter, The Federalist Papers, (New York: Penguin Group, 2003), 77. Mary K. Kirtz and others, eds., The Elections of 2000: Politics, Culture, and Economics in North America (Akron, Ohio: The University of Akron Press, 2006), 80. Michael I. Meyerson, Libertys Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote the Federalist Papers, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the World (New York: Perseus Books Group, 2008), 165.