Economic and political inequality
Citizens United ruling, narrowly passed by the Supreme Court, removed limits on political expenditure by corporations and unions, effectively legalizing unlimited campaign spending by the wealthy (Hasen, 2016). The following rise of funding tools such as Super Political Action Committees, Super PACs, has allowed billionaires and interest groups to dominate campaign financing. Increasingly, the ultra- wealthy in America are donating more and more and exerting growing amounts of political influence, most notably seen by Elon Musk, who effectively bought a powerful position in government for a short period. This creates a clear issue of political inequality as lawmakers become, in effect, indebted and in part beholden to wealthy benefactors. This system promotes politicians who cater to the interests of donors rather than the public. Lobbying further reinforces this inequality: major industries spend billions annually to influence legislation, often enjoying levels of access to lawmakers that ordinary citizens cannot achieve (Drutman, 2015). The inevitable result of campaign financing and lobbying in the US is increased access to power by individuals and corporations with money, at the expense of the influence of ordinary citizens. Germany could be seen as a counterexample to this, with a publicly funded election system, comparatively low campaign spending, and corporate contributions banned if they exceed modest thresholds (EuroPAM, 2025). These differences would appear to reduce the role of private wealth in elections and help maintain a more level political playing field. However, even in Germany, political influence remains skewed by economic power. Lobbying by major industries continues to shape legislation, and German MPs often maintain close ties with corporate actors. Rules around lobbying transparency have been criticized as weak and inconsistently enforced (Transparency International, 2021). Meanwhile, wealthier firms fund think tanks, sponsor parliamentary events, and shape public narratives through indirect channels and access. The influence may be subtler than in the U.S., but the result is similar: those with more economic power enjoy greater political power. This shows that even where formal regulations are stronger, political inequality reasserts itself through alternative means. Unless campaign finance and lobbying are radically insulated from economic pressure, which very few democracies achieve, economic inequality will inevitably produce political inequality. Beyond direct access to power, economic inequality also shapes political participation and representation. Those with fewer economic resources are consistently less likely to vote, join parties, or stand for office. Their preferences are heard less often, and their life experiences are poorly reflected in legislature. Where economic inequalities exist, participation gaps become entrenched, making political inequality a near-certain consequence. The United Kingdom, in this case, is a clear example. While voting is voluntary and formal barriers are minimal, turnout is strongly stratified by income. In the 2019 general election, turnout among the wealthiest quintile was over 20% higher than among the poorest quintile (Electoral Commission, 2020). In addition to voting disparities, representation within Parliament is already heavily skewed towards the economically privileged. Political careers increasingly require unpaid internships, elite university networks, and access to party machinery, all of which favour wealthier individuals (Birch et al., 2013). The result of these barriers to entry in the UK is that those with fewer economic resources are
140
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting