LIVE: The Fall of Western Democracy

Public Sentiment, Campaign Finance, and Political Accountability

Little Rock, AR – Polls conducted across the U.S. reveal widespread public discontent with the American government’s unwavering support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza, especially as the humanitarian toll continues to escalate.

A recent survey from Data for Progress found that two-thirds of Americans (67%) support the U.S. calling for a permanent ceasefire and de-escalation of violence in Gaza.

This includes majorities across the political spectrum: 77% of Democrats, 69% of Independents, and 56% of Republicans back the call for peace. This longstanding public opposition reflects a festering frustration with political leaders at all levels and in both parties for their handling of the conflict.

In the same poll, President Biden’s approval rating on his handling of Israel’s genocide dropped, with a 21-point margin of disapproval. Many Democratic voters who otherwise support the president feel increasingly alienated by the administration’s refusal to push for an immediate ceasefire.

This disconnect between public opinion and government action is a microcosm of a larger problem: the fundamental breakdown of American democracy, in which the voices of ordinary citizens are ignored in favor of elite interests.

The Role of Local Governments

While foreign policy is primarily driven by the federal government, state and municipal governments also play an important role in shaping public discourse and amplifying public sentiment.

Chicago, San Francisco, and Richmond, CA drafted ceasefire resolutions and urged the federal government to take action. These resolutions may not have the power to change national policy directly, but they send a powerful message about where public opinion lies.

Despite the majority of their citizens’ support for a ceasefire, local governments, such as in Little Rock, have nearly unanimously refused to act. In a city where roughly 67% of residents support the ceasefire, the Little Rock City Board of Directors has yet to vote on a resolution calling for an end to the violence.

The mayor’s and city board’s refusal stands in defiance of the majority of citizens. This unveils the broader issue: elected officials, even at the local level, are out of step with the voters they supposedly represent.

If local officials, who are nearest to the people they serve, fail to act on clear public sentiment, how can national leaders be expected to be more responsive? This dissonance between public opinion and political action points to a deeper erosion of democracy in America.

Public Outcry Met with Silence

The disconnect between what Americans want and what their elected officials do is not a new phenomenon. The Vietnam War, a wildly unpopular conflict, continued unabated for nearly fifteen years in the face of massive civil unrest and mounting casualties, a pattern repeated in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

Today, as the genocide in Gaza continues, the U.S. government once again faces a decision: will it listen to its citizens, or will it continue sending billions in taxpayer dollars and advanced weaponry to a country openly slaughtering innocent civilians and committing countless war crimes?

The refusal to address public demands for a ceasefire reflects a larger issue—how deeply entrenched elite interests have become in the American political system, that their financial contributions override popular opposition.

Money vs. Majority Rule

The most significant reason for the persistent gap between public opinion and policy outcomes is the outsized influence of money in politics. The role of wealthy donors, special interest groups, and corporate lobbyists has become increasingly dominant over the past few decades.

This imbalance has strengthened political agendas that are out of step with the majority of voters. The 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision, which allowed for unlimited independent expenditures by corporations and unions in political campaigns, further entrenched this influence.

The floodgates were opened for Super PACs and “dark money” groups that can spend freely to influence elections, with little to no accountability. As a result, political campaigns have become more expensive, and candidates are increasingly reliant on wealthy donors to stay competitive.

Research from Data for Progress and other organizations has shown that policies favored by wealthy donors are significantly more likely to become law than those supported by the general public.

A landmark 2014 study by political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page revealed that when wealthy elites and average Americans disagreed on a policy issue, the policy backed by elites had a far greater chance of being enacted.

Policies supported by wealthy elites had a 45% chance of becoming law while policies they opposed had only a 30% chance of being enacted. This trend has continued as political campaigns increasingly rely on substantial financial contributions, reducing the relative influence of the average voter.

For example, despite the fact that a majority of Americans support policies like raising the minimum wage, expanding access to healthcare, and addressing climate change, these policies are repeatedly stalled in Congress.

In contrast, policies that benefit the wealthy—such as corporate tax cuts and deregulation—sail through with relative ease. The increasing role of campaign contributions raises concerns about whether elected politicians are deprioritizing the interests of their constituents.

The Rise of Dark Money & the Post-2016 Political Landscape

The post-2016 political landscape has seen an even greater concentration of power in the hands of the ultra-wealthy. In the 2020 election cycle, the top 1% of donors contributed more than $1 billion to federal campaigns.

This group of mega-donors has an outsized influence over which candidates get elected and what policies are prioritized once they’re in office. The power of money in politics has evolved into a system in which only those with financial backing will succeed, effectively shutting out those who represent the interests of ordinary voters.

Moreover, the rise of “dark money” — political spending by organizations that are not required to disclose their donors — has further exacerbated the problem. These shadowy entities, often funded by billionaires and corporations, have poured billions of dollars into elections and advocacy.

According to a report by the Center for Responsive Politics, dark money groups spent over $1 billion on the 2020 presidential election alone. Much of this spending goes toward influencing public opinion through attack ads, misinformation campaigns, and efforts to sway voters on key issues, from healthcare to climate policy.

AIPAC, Foreign Influence, & U.S. Policy on Gaza

The ongoing genocide in Gaza provides a clear example of how U.S. foreign policy can be shaped by lobbying efforts that contradict the views of the American public. While a majority of Americans want a ceasefire and increased humanitarian aid for Palestinian civilians, U.S. policy is steadfast in its support for the ongoing genocide.

This disconnect has drawn attention to the role of pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC and defense contractors, whose influence over U.S. foreign policy is substantial. While AIPAC operates as a domestic organization, its advocacy focuses on advancing policies favorable to Israel, often securing billions in U.S. military aid to the country.

Critics argue that these lobbying efforts, coupled with significant donations to U.S. politicians, prioritize Israel’s interests at the expense of broader American public sentiment, especially when it comes to de-escalating violence in Gaza.

As the U.S. government committed $8.7 billion in military aid to Israel in 2024, FEMA simultaneously faced a significant funding shortfall of $6 billion. Critics have argued this left the agency without the necessary resources to respond to recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene.

Federal law prohibits direct contributions from foreign governments to U.S. political campaigns. However, AIPAC and similar organizations funded by American donors have the ability to shape foreign policy decisions through lobbying, fundraising, and political pressure. This raises questions about the balance between foreign policy influenced by lobby groups and the influence of the American people.

In the case of Gaza, while a significant majority of Americans support a ceasefire and humanitarian aid for Palestinian civilians, U.S. foreign policy remains heavily influenced by pro-Israel lobbying groups and defense contractors.

These groups have a vested interest in maintaining U.S. military support for Israel, even as public opinion shifts toward de-escalation. In this sense, money in politics not only distorts domestic policy but also influences international conflicts, ensuring that the interests of the few are prioritized over the will of the many.

Democracy Is Dead

The influence of money in politics, combined with the growing disconnect between public opinion and political action, leads to one inescapable conclusion: democracy in the United States is dead.

What remains is a system in which the influence of wealthy elites has a significant impact on policy direction, more and more outweighing the voices of ordinary citizens. The principle of government by the people, for the people, has been challenged by the growing role of financial contributions in shaping policy outcomes.

As the crisis in Gaza continues and public demand for a ceasefire grows, local and national leaders alike must decide whether they will continue to serve the interests of the wealthy few or stand with their constituents. However, given the overwhelming influence of campaign finance and special interests, it seems unlikely that this shift will occur.

The stakes could not be higher. If the U.S. is to salvage any semblance of democratic governance, it must confront the corrupting influence of money in politics and prioritize the will of the people over the interests of the elite. Otherwise, the country will continue to drift further into an oligarchic system, where the wealthy hold all the power, and the rest of society is left powerless, disenfranchised, and without a voice in the future of their own nation. In this context, democracy is no longer at a crossroads—it has already fallen.