There are many reasons why one-issue politics are bad politics. They fuel polarization, they doom the possibility of democratic consensus, and they slam the brakes on across-the-board social and political progress. Most of all they blind us to the complexity of the world we live in. Each issue we care about is connected in some way and relies on a healthy and strong democracy.

So it is that the media issues I have discussed these many years should not be seen in a solitary light. True, I don’t see a solution to the many challenges our country confronts today—health, education, environment, equal opportunity for all, wealth inequality, workers’ rights, and voter suppression, to name but a few—without media doing a much better job presenting those  issues to the public. Citizens deserve, indeed require, ample access to facts so we can make informed decisions about our future. Infotainment and reality shows masquerading as “news” are not the stuff of a vibrant democracy.

But media does not exist in a vacuum. It exists within a larger context that molds and fashions how it looks and what it does. Media develops amid the push and pull of powerful forces affecting our democracy, even as it helps shape them. It is both author and victim of its current sad predicament.

At the apex of our politics now is money. The outrageous influence of unlimited cash has poisoned our political bloodstream. Politics has been taken over as never before by special interests, millionaires, and billionaires. We all know that Presidential campaigns cost billions, but nowadays city council races, and even judgeship elections, can soar beyond the hundreds of thousands of dollars. What a travesty of democracy that even our courts and our system of justice often go to the highest bidders—bidders for whom justice is the last thing on their minds. Money always has and always will be present in the body politic, but today its influence extends beyond anything in our history, including the notorious Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century. Money elects our leaders, disciplines our leaders, and too often controls our leaders. When legislation is crafted behind closed Congressional and statehouse doors by special interests intent on having their way, the common good cannot prevail. When government regulatory agencies respond only to the wishes of well-heeled lobbyists, the public interest cannot be protected. Make no mistake: this is corrupting our democracy and imperiling the very future of the nation.  “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few,” the great Justice Brandeis said, “but we cannot have both.”

I saw this happen. When I worked in the U.S. Senate in the ‘70s and’80s, the power of money (already too great) was far short of what it has become today. Senators and Congressman used to go home to talk with their constituents on a monthly, sometimes weekly, basis. Today they are more likely to fly to New York or Los Angeles to solicit donations from the fat-cat crowd. Most days at lunchtime back then they would go to the Senate Dining Room to talk with their colleagues of both parties; today they go across the street to a political party office or a special interest townhouse to dial for dollars while they eat their sandwiches. I remember when a group of Senators from both parties would meet at least once a month for dinner and cordial discussions at one of their homes. It fostered good will and bipartisanship. Fancy that now—more likely it would turn into a fist fight. Until we learn to limit the democracy-destroying power of money in our politics, we cannot begin to cure the many other problems bedeviling us. The Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in 시민연합 to allow even more special interest money in our elections ranks up there among the worst-ever decisions of the highest court in the land. It will take united citizens to undo 시민연합.

Big media is both cause and effect of money’s political supremacy. Its titans are an important part of the cash-and-carry crowd. They are some of the most influential creators of our money-dominated politics. As I’ve written many times before, we would have strong net neutrality rules absent the money big cable and telecom companies pour into lobbying and political campaigns. Media conglomerates are also the ones whose ox would be gored by letting people really understand the money chase…so they don’t much talk about it on their outlets. There’s a reason the media’s coverage of the Presidential campaigns has so far failed to discuss net neutrality, the shrinking free press, or the influence money wields in our political system. And every time these media monopolists gobble up another once-independent newspaper or radio or television station, they only rip further the fabric of our democratic discourse.

So how do we chase the money-changers and chasers from the temple? We need laws to reclaim the temple, which means lawmakers to pass them—lawmakers not beholden to the current barons. But most seats are locked in for the incumbents who hold them, gerrymandered into safe seats that know no real competition.The present system of drawing electoral district maps has almost completely removed competition from Congressional campaigns. Cook Political Report tells us that only 40 of 435 House of Representative seats will be competitive in 2020.  Election districts are generally drawn up by state legislatures following every census. The majority party in the legislature configures the maps, drawing them, often crazily and without regard to common sense, to favor itself. Politically-driven and designed to favor incumbents over challengers, this gerrymandering denies democracy the fresh air it needs to breathe. The Supreme Court claims it has inadequate jurisdiction to fix the problem, so it becomes an issue for the states. While a few are stepping up, most have not; ditto the state courts. California found its way to non-partisan redistricting by taking the power of line-drawing away from politicians and giving it to an expert commission. Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, and Utah have passed similar initiatives to create independent redistricting commissions that do not give one party an unfair advantage. Common Cause and others are fighting, and sometimes actually winning, uphill legislative and court battles over gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering and the influence of big money discussed above are joined at the hip, one reinforcing the other. Neither exists in a vacuum. Truly representative districts, allowing the people’s voice to be heard, would encourage real campaign finance reform. And curbing big money’s power would encourage more states to enact congressional districting reform. But, like the old song says, you can’t have one without the other.

We don’t need to rank in importance the issues of special interest money, ludicrous redistricting, and big media. They are each part of a linked democratic challenge.  There can be no real democracy without curbing big money. There can be no real democracy without making Congressional districts representative of the areas they encompass. There can be no real democracy without an electorate informed by media that digs for the facts citizens need to help chart the future of our country. Bring these three abuses under control and democracy can flourish again.

Only We the People can make it happen. It’s no spectator sport; it is a democratic imperative—for each and every one of us.

Michael Copps는 2001년 5월부터 2011년 12월까지 연방통신위원회 위원으로 재직했으며, 2009년 1월부터 6월까지 FCC 대행 위원장을 역임했습니다. 위원회에서 보낸 그의 세월은 "공익"을 강력히 옹호한 것, 특히 소수 민족, 아메리카 원주민 및 다양한 장애인 커뮤니티와 같은 FCC 결정에서 "비전통적 이해 관계자"에게 다가가는 것, 그리고 그가 국가의 미디어 및 통신 산업에서 과도한 통합으로 간주하는 흐름을 막기 위한 조치로 강조되었습니다. 2012년, 전임 위원인 Copps는 Common Cause에 합류하여 미디어 및 민주주의 개혁 이니셔티브를 이끌었습니다. Common Cause는 1970년 John Gardner가 시민들이 정치 과정에서 자신의 목소리를 내고 선출된 지도자들이 공익에 대해 책임을 지도록 하는 수단으로 설립한 비당파 비영리 옹호 단체입니다. 자세히 알아보기 콥스 위원 미디어 민주주의 의제: FCC 위원 Michael J. Copps의 전략과 유산