State legislatures across the country are passing voter
suppression laws ostensibly to prevent fraud.
While over thirty states have considered regulations requiring people to
present government-issued photo IDs to vote, up to 11% of American citizens
lack such identification. The requirement
would make it more difficult for certain people—especially the elderly, blacks,
students and people with disabilities—to vote.
Here is a summary of other similar actions that have been
taken:
- Three states passed laws to require documentary proof of citizenship, though as many as 7 percent of American citizens do not have such proof.
- Seven states shortened early voting time frames, even though over 30 percent of all votes cast in the 2008 general election were cast before Election Day.
- Two state legislatures voted to repeal Election Day registration laws, though Election Day registration increases voter turnout by 10-12 percent.
- Two
states passed legislation making it much more difficult for third-party
organizations to register voters—so difficult, in fact, that some voter
registration organizations are leaving the states altogether.
Proponents of voter suppression legislation have failed to
show that fraud is a problem anywhere in the country. For example, despite the Department of
Justice’s 2002 Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative, which promised to
vigorously prosecute voter fraud, the federal government obtained only 26 convictions
or guilty pleas between 2002 and 2005. Other
studies consistently find that voter fraud appears to be extraordinarily rare.
At the same time as these steps are being taken,
corporations have been given the extraordinary ability to sway votes through
unlimited campaign contributions. One
case in point goes beyond the believable into the realm of the surreal. Barclays, the bank that has acknowledged irregularities
among its traders, has been revealed to be the ninth largest bundler of
campaign funds to the Romney campaign.
What its traders were apparently doing was to go into cahoots with at
least four other banks to manipulate the London Interbank Offering Rate (or
LIBOR). LIBOR is a floating interest
rate that $350 trillion of financial contracts, including residential mortgages,
reference. The effect of this
manipulation conceivably led to instances in which mortgage borrowers were made
to pay too high a rate in order to improve the profit performance of Barclays
traders.
Barclays has been a vocal critic of financial regulation
and with its access to corporate profits and a network of well-heeled bankers,
is able to influence American voters. But
the thing that is most bizarre about this is that Barclays is a British—not an
American—bank. In other words, a foreign
corporation that wants to reduce its
regulatory scrutiny despite a spotty ethical track record is bundling millions of dollars to support a candidate who
has vowed to dismantle the legal framework built to prevent another
financial collapse. If we don’t recognize something incredibly
dangerous in all this, we’re not paying attention. While it is becoming increasingly difficult for American citizens to cast their votes, even foreign corporations are expanding their influence in our elections.
