Capitalism v. Democracy: Money in Politics and the Free Market Constitution

by Timothy Kuhner

As of the latest national elections, it costs approximately $1 billion to become president, $10 million to become a Senator, and $1 million to become a Member of the House. High-priced campaigns, an elite class of donors and spenders, superPACs, and increasing corporate political power have become the new normal in American politics. In Capitalism v. Democracy , Timothy Kuhner explains how these conditions have corrupted American democracy, turning it into a system of rule that favors the wealthy and marginalizes ordinary citizens. Kuhner maintains that these conditions have corrupted capitalism as well, routing economic competition through political channels and allowing politically powerful companies to evade market forces. The Supreme Court has brought about both forms of corruption by striking down campaign finance reforms that limited the role of money in politics. Exposing the extreme economic worldview that pollutes constitutional interpretation, Kuhner shows how the Court became the architect of American plutocracy. Capitalism v. Democracy offers the key to understanding why corporations are now citizens, money is political speech, limits on corporate spending are a form of censorship, democracy is a free market, and political equality and democratic integrity are unconstitutional constraints on money in politics. Supreme Court opinions have dictated these conditions in the name of the Constitution, as though the Constitution itself required the privatization of democracy. Kuhner explores the reasons behind these opinions, reveals that they form a blueprint for free market democracy, and demonstrates that this design corrupts both politics and markets. He argues that nothing short of a constitutional amendment can set the necessary boundaries between capitalism and democracy.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Economics

376 pages, Paperback

First published June 25, 2014

Reviews

[Grant · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although it’s an obvious point that money shouldn’t control politics, here’s nearly 400 pages explaining why.

[Derek · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone who has spent the better part of my career over the past two decades thinking about how to grapple with big money in politics, I have read a lot of books about the Supreme Court, constitutional law, and campaign finance reform. Capitalism v. Democracy, by Timothy Kuhner, is by far the best.

Unlike many diatribes about corruption which frankly smack of socialism, Kuhner stakes his critique in terms that conservative scholars and voters can embrace – the need to preserve liberty and to save capitalism itself from the market failures caused by lobbying and campaign spending. Here’s how he sums up his argument:

“If the incentives in political markets go against the integrity of capitalism, then capitalism and democracy would be allies in the struggle for political finance reform. The terrible irony would be that the Court, in using capitalist ideology to liberalize political markets, has undermined capitalism itself. The cause for hope, on the other hand, would be the American public’s clarity of mind, its vehement support for both capitalism and campaign finance reform.”

Kuhner quotes the likes of Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, and Thomas Jefferson to make his case and details how crony capitalism undermines true capitalists and defeats Adam Smith’s invisible hand that allows capitalism to benefit the public good.

Although Kuhner demonstrates an unmatched knowledge of campaign finance jurisprudence, he avoids the inclination of most liberal legal scholars in thinking that “the courts alone” can fix this. Most legal academics, who have spent their careers reading court opinions but often have litter understanding of history or political organizing, have grown accustomed to placing the courts on a pedestal and abhor the thought that ordinary citizens or politicians would get involved trying to change court rulings. Refreshingly, Kuhner takes the opposite approach. He ends the book with this conclusion:

“The Court cannot do this work. I can only undo it, and it has proven itself resolute on this score. And so, as it should be, these questions fall to the people and their representatives. Nobody else has the rightful authority to amend the Constitution.”

This is heady stuff and the book is not a quick or entertaining read. But if you take your role as a citizen seriously, it’s an important book to pick up and digest. I hope you do.

[Susan]

Heard Tim speak and was impressed with how cogent and well-thought out his thesis is. We need more crisp and persuasive thinking about the problem of money in politics that gives us a strong theoretical basis for dealing with the problem. Looking forward to reading this, although I may not get to it until next year.

[Ailith Twinning · Rating 4 out of 5]

On the second reading, quite like this book. All you need to know going in is that this book focuses on the Supreme Court angle of Regressive politics (in the literal sense, rolling back Progressivist Era policies)

Yeah, still like it overall, nitpicks aside.

[Kathleen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oops somehow wrote this review on wrong book.