Ballot Box 1, Cash Box 0

Our politicians are in the pocket of special interests--or at least, we think they are. Polls show that more than half of Americans believe campaign donations influence elected officials "a great deal," while two-thirds think the influence of contributions on elections and government policy is a "major problem." Many journalists agree. According to editorial writers for The New York Times, the U.S. has "a system that makes money more important than the public will." What with "huge open-ended campaign contributions by rich individuals, corporations and labor unions," the concerns of average Americans are pushed aside.

Such cynicism is pervasive, but the evidence to support it is not. In truth, our political leaders are quite responsive to average Americans. What the public wants, elected officials stand ready to provide. When voters' wishes are unclear, or when much of the public simply doesn't care, special interests have more opportunity to get their way. But when they do, it's often less because of any contributions than because of their ability to stir passionate supporters to the polls.

To get some sense of the responsiveness of our politicians, as well as the limited role of contributions, consider Social Security and Medicare. These programs account for 35 percent of the federal budget, with an annual price tag in excess of half a trillion dollars. Many consider the spiraling cost of these entitlements a textbook case of special interest influence run amok.

But is it? In fact, surveys suggest that the public at large, not just seniors, supports current spending. Polls show a mere 9 percent of Americans favor cutting benefits from Social Security. Support for cutting Medicare chalks up at 10 percent.

Of course, while the great majority of Americans may say that they are opposed to cuts, there is good reason to suspect that many hold such opinions lightly. So long as spending falls within some fairly broad range, a significant share of the public doesn't especially care. This indifference leaves politicians and those special interests that do care--in particular, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)--room to maneuver. As a result of activities by groups such as the AARP, spending on entitlements for seniors tends toward the upper end of the range that the broader public finds acceptable.

Is this evidence of evil distortion by special interest contributions? Not so fast. While the AARP is quite effective at pursuing its interests, the group doesn't buy politicians. In fact, it makes no donations to politicians at all. Instead, it threatens to boot them out at the ballot box--with the help of its 33 million members. The threat of seniors' wrath, not the lure of their cash, is the key to the vast, seemingly unstoppable growth of Social Security and Medicare.

Are Social Security and Medicare exceptions? Perhaps in other areas of policy, special interests do use large donations to get their way. Consider trade policy, for example. Many analysts believe that narrow, protectionist interests regularly run roughshod over the interest of the public. The public, however, appears to believe otherwise. Polls show a large proportion of Americans are in fact quite sympathetic to protectionism. By 57 percent to 36 percent, for example, Americans oppose additional trade agreements with Latin American countries. And by 54 percent to 34 percent, Americans believe that world trade destroys more jobs in the U.S. than it creates.

Of course, with public opinion on trade policy, as with entitlement policy, there is a certain amount of slack. Most Americans don't follow the ins and outs of the latest Uruguay Round. As long as there's no "giant sucking sound," many Americans are more or less indifferent.

This gives protectionist interests room to work, and they do what they can to take advantage. When they're successful, however, it's generally not because they have managed to buy representatives or senators for $5,000 (the maximum contribution a PAC is allowed), but rather because they've convinced members of Congress that a stand against protection will anger voters. A senator from Michigan who opposed restrictions on imported cars would risk losing office, not because he would be unable to raise enough money to run for reelection, but because so many of his constituents would turn out to vote against him.

The power of votes, not money, also explains the country's legions of unnecessary military bases, water projects and highway projects. When members of Congress decided in 1988 and 1991 to hand over authority to a special base-closing commission, they didn't do so because they couldn't resist campaign contributions from wealthy military officers. Instead, they were simply afraid that they would suffer retribution from outraged voters who would lose their jobs or customers if the bases shut down.

The idea that money from special interests drives American politics is appealing, in a way, because it suggests the possibility of an easy fix. If we are unhappy with our politics, all we need do is eliminate the distortion introduced by special interest dollars. That's no cinch politically, but at least it's clear what needs to be done.

Unfortunately, it's not so simple. In our politics today, there is much less distortion of the public will than commonly believed. The American people, in most cases, get what they want. Whether they ought to is another question.

Ira W. Carnahan is a third-year graduate student in the Department of Government.