4 — Tuesday, March 10, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

W

ith the Democratic 
primaries 
in 
full 
swing, 
the 
University 
of 
Michigan’s 
campus 
is 
becoming 
dense 
with 
political 
advocacy 
— 
fliers, voter registration drives, 
candidate offices opening and 
endorsements are present at 
every corner. As people begin 
to discuss the primaries online 
and on campus, students want 
to take part in the monumental 
2020 
presidential 
election. 
Conversations 
range 
from 
preferred 
candidates 
to 
potential policies to the peculiar 
statements made in debates. 
However, 
a 
commonality 
that ties many of the topics 
together is touchy, personal and 
controversial: money. In the 
Democratic primary, the role of 
personal wealth is flagrant. Front 
runner Sen. Bernie Sanders, 
I-Vt., has made working-class 
issues the cornerstone of his 
campaign, while Mayor Michael 
Bloomberg, D-N.Y., is pouring 
his $56.1 billion net worth 
into mimicking a grassroots 
campaign 
with 
personal 
social 
media 
advertisements 
despite making condescending 
comments about blue-collar jobs.
During the 2016 election, 
President 
Donald 
Trump 
effectively utilized his personal 
wealth and experience as an 
entrepreneur to garner support. 
The narrative of being a “self-
made” 
billionaire 
paints 
an 
image of independent work ethic 
and success; despite flaunting his 
wealth, he was still able to run 
as a political outsider positioned 
to end corruption. His “drain 
the swamp” mantra has been 
satirized following his tactful 
cabinet placements. However, 
the impact of financial affluence 
in politics runs much deeper than 
the presidency and a fascination 
with billionaires. Voters who 
have firmly established opinions 
on billionaires should keep in 
mind that positions and policy 
can change, but deeply rooted 
opinions tend not to. Rather than 
having cyclical discussions on 
the merits of enormous wealth 
acquisition, we must focus on 
how the current system favors 
private interests over public 
values.
Campaign finance legislation 
protects the ability of wealth to 
be shielded from the public eye 
in local, state and nationwide 
campaigns. 
The 
state 
of 
Michigan has a deep history of 
insufficient campaign finance 
transparency and ranks last 
among the 50 states in the 
ability to analyze systems that 
enable corruption according 
to 
The 
Center 
for 
Public 
Integrity, to the detriment of 
our elections. Public access to 
information, lobbying disclosure 
and executive, legislative and 

judicial authority are the other 
glaring issues the state is failing 
to address. Donation limits are 
spotty at best, pathetic at worst. 
The Secretary of State website 
that should accessibly show 
campaign finance is convoluted. 
Critical information is buried 
by 
complex 
search 
engine 
fields and a lack of coherent 
organization to the detriment 
of 
constituents 
seeking 
to 
educate themselves on their 
options for representation. This 
particularly impacts those with 
less proficient digital literacy. 
These deeply embedded policy 
issues are being buried with 
other political discourse. They 
must be exposed, discussed and 
changed — reforming a system 
that hides dark money must be 
at the forefront of conversations 
about money in politics as 
opposed to whether a candidate 
is a billionaire.

Systemic 
failures 
are 
reinforced by electing people 
that 
directly 
benefit 
from 
that 
system. 
Independent 
organizations, like the National 
Rifle Association, invest vast 
sums of money in candidates 
that will strike down gun 
control legislation, despite the 
majority of the public claiming 
we need to combat gun violence. 
With the 2020 presidential 
election fast approaching, it is 
time to discuss these hidden 
(and not so hidden) influences.
The 
political-economic 
system 
is 
reinforced 
by 
campaigns 
powered 
by 
personal wealth. Trump used 
his self-described success as 
a tool for his campaign; as a 
businessman, he knew how 
to negotiate deals and get 
things done. This narrative 
was bolstered by the assertion 
that Trump was “self-made,” 
when in fact his “small loan of 
a million dollars” was actually 
more than $413 million, when 
factoring in inflation. This 
falsehood was not a partisan 
belief.
Both 
Republicans 
and 
Democrats 
misperceived 
Trump’s financial background 
surrounding 
his 
2016 
presidential run. Statements 
like “I built what I built myself” 
and “I did it by working long 
hours 
and 
working 
hard 
and 
working 
smart” 
evoke 

admiration and empathy from 
some constituents, veiling his 
cushioned life and access to 
an array of business ventures 
from his family’s wealth and 
network. Utilizing the “pull 
yourself up by your bootstraps” 
narrative establishes solidarity 
with working and middle-class 
voters who believe hard work 
is the main element of success. 
This tactic is unethical because 
it implies he has had similar 
life experiences when in truth 
he always had the wealth to 
fall back on. His interests lie 
in maintaining the system that 
allowed him and his family to 
accumulate immense wealth, 
not reforming it to the needs of 
the working class.
The 
crux 
of 
the 
conflicting 
narratives 
surrounding 
billionaires, 
between 
vilification 
and 
romanticization, 
lies 
within 
each 
individual’s 
unique 
perspective 
on 
how 
the 
economy works; we typically 
fall somewhere between the 
notion of rugged individualism 
and systemic assistance and 
restraint. And these values are 
not easily changed. Political 
discourse should be rooted in 
the realities of how democracy 
is 
being 
damaged 
by 
the 
influence of immense sums 
of money from both elected 
representatives 
and 
non-
government 
organizations. 
Rather than if we believe 
billionaires are good or bad, our 
discussions should be driven 
by ideas that can change, like 
positions on the specific policies 
that allows dark money to be 
shielded 
from 
constituents. 
Disguising the role of money in 
the policies politicians support 
when elected is a deliberate aim 
to deceive their constituents, 
undermining the desires of 
the people, which should be 
the focus of the narratives of 
wealth.
When politicians misguide 
the public about the source of 
their funds, the signals that 
should be flagged are muted in 
the convoluted and congested 
political narrative that tends 
to 
focus 
on 
salaciousness. 
Acknowledging the difference 
between how we conceptualize 
wealth and how money plays a 
role in democracy will be crucial 
in healing a deeply flawed and 
unrepresentative 
government. 
It is our duty as students of the 
University, and as citizens, to 
understand that some values 
cannot be debated — we must 
focus our energy on educating 
ourselves on the flawed policies 
that protect dark money and 
how to redirect the narrative of 
money in politics.

Demonetize your vote

ELIZABETH COOK | COLUMN

Elizabeth Cook can be reached at 

elizcook@umich.edu.

Y

ou wake up in the morning 
and switch on your light. 
With that flick of your 
index finger, you are complicit. You 
are causing the seas to rise, likely 
leading to the displacement of 
between 32 and 80 million people. 
You are responsible for the future 
death of all coral reefs, ridding 
over 500 million people of their 
livelihoods. You are responsible for 
increased water scarcity, affecting 
over 350 million people.
Is this fair? No. But that is 
what politicians, corporations 
and people in power are 
saying these days: handing 
you, 
the 
individual, 
the 
burden of ending the climate 
crisis and the guilt associated 
with not being able to.
Over 
the 
past 
several 
months, I have witnessed 
many 
examples 
of 
our 
community leaders — both at 
the University of Michigan 
and city level — shirking the 
responsibility to act on the 
current climate crisis and 
instead calling for increased 
individual 
action 
and 
behavioral change.
At the Ann Arbor City 
Council meeting last April, 
City 
Councilwoman 
Anne 
Banister, 
D-Ward 
1, 
voted 
against dedicating $880,000 
to address climate change at 
the city level, stating how “we 
can demand that the city do 
a bunch of stuff but I would 
again urge that people look at 
their own choices.” Similarly, 
during a public town hall about 
the 
President’s 
Commission 
on Carbon Neutrality (PCCN) 
that same month, University 
President 
Mark 
Schlissel 
explained that “we really do 
as individuals share not just in 
the need to have a successful 
outcome, but in actually driving 
that success.”
At 
a 
carbon 
neutrality 
town 
hall 
in 
September, 
Stephen Forrest, co-chair of 
PCCN, stated that “this isn’t 
just the responsibility of the 
University administration. It’s 
the responsibility of all of us, 
turning off lights, unplugging 
our chargers and things like 
that. These things are actually 
really meaningful if you add 
them up.” At a similar panel 
discussion on the intersection of 
businesses and carbon `told the 

audience he walks four miles 
round-trip to work every day 
in an effort to reduce his own 
carbon footprint. Forrest said 
that “if even a small number 
of individuals adjusted their 
everyday activities to reduce 
their carbon footprint, society 
could potentially begin to take 
steps toward carbon neutrality.”
These 
recommendations 
from our leaders illustrate two 
possibilities: They are either 
knowingly parroting fossil fuel 
industry talking points or are 
showing their complete lack 
of understanding of the way in 
which systems shape individual 
action. Similarly to how the 
fossil fuel industry profits from 
our current reliance on fossil 
fuels, corporations, institutions 
and the powerful reap the 
benefits of our current systems 
— both economic and political — 
that prioritize their profit over 
our planet, and are the causes of 
the current climate crisis.

In 
other 
words, 
climate 
change is a symptom of a far-too-
long overlooked side effect of our 
current economic and political 
systems that protect money 
and power at the expense of all 
else. When those with wealth 
and power have something to 
lose from correctly addressing 
the causes of the climate crisis, 
it is easier for them to double 
down on greenwashing and 
calls for individual behavior 
change. 
We 
are 
instructed 
to unplug our chargers and 
turn 
our 
lights 
off 
while 
corporations 
go 
unchecked, 
profiting from the destruction 
of our ecosystems. Just 100 
companies are responsible for 
71 percent of global greenhouse 
gas emissions, and 20 of those 
corporations 
are 
responsible 
for a whopping 35 percent of all 
global emissions.

As Thoreau (bleh, I know) 
states 
in 
his 
essay 
“Civil 
Disobedience”: “I quarrel not 
with far-off foes, but those who, 
near at home, cooperate with, 
and do the bidding of, those far 
away, and without whom the 
latter would be harmless.” To 
be clear, I quarrel with both the 
far-off foes and those near at 
home, with names like Banister, 
Schlissel and Forrest. Forrest, 
for example, makes $344,000 
annually and can afford to live 
close enough to walk to work, 
while living in a city with such 
an extreme lack of housing 
and housing affordability that 
graduate student employees, 
who are attempting to bargain 
over more affordable housing 
and climate action, are told 
they should live in other cities 
and commute to. Forrest is by 
no means the villain of this 
story, but his actions and words 
are emblematic of a larger 
issue: It is leaders like him 
— those who have benefitted 
from current systems of power 
and are therefore reluctant to 
change them — that stand in 
our way and in the way of a 
livable planet.
When we find ourselves 
living in a society that has 
been built from the ground 
up on human exploitation, 
resource 
extraction, 

fossil fuel use and power 
accumulation, the individual 
will always be complicit, 
rendering individual action 
by itself futile. I am not 
telling you to stop reducing 
meat 
consumption, 
or 
stop 
getting 
on 
busses, 
or stop turning off lights 
and 
unplugging 
chargers. 
And I’m not saying that 
you don’t bear some of the 
responsibility for causing the 
climate crisis and carry some of 
the burdens of solving it. What 
I’m saying is that in order to 
correctly address this crisis, 
today’s systems of exploitation 
and inequality must be toppled. 
Only collective action can do 
just that.

ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND 
MILES STEPHENSON
Editorial Page Editors

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

SUNGMIN CHO | COLUMN

Students exposed to hate in Ann Arbor

O

n Dec. 17, 2019, two 
of my friends and I 
were walking on East 
William 
Street. 
A 
middle-
aged white male who seemed 
intoxicated 
aggressively 
shouted 
“f***ing 
Asian 
b*tches!” at us. On Feb. 24, 
2020 two loiterers at the State 
Street entrance to Nickels 
Arcade asked me for money 
before 
telling 
each 
other 
“he doesn’t speak English.” 
In both incidents, to avoid 
confrontation, I couldn’t do 
anything but walk away.
Compared to many major 
cities in the United States 
I have visited, Ann Arbor is 
considered a relatively safe 
place. In fact, it has been 
recognized by Niche — a 
ranking and review site — as 
one of the best cities to live 
in America, in terms of both 
the 
overall 
environment 
and safety. But at the same 
time, University of Michigan 
students 
living 
in 
Ann 
Arbor are not completely 
free from the problems that 
plague the rest of America. 
University 
buildings 
are 
spread throughout the city, 
making 
the 
boundary 
of 
campus quite blurry. When it 
comes to housing, 69 percent 
of students at the University 
live off-campus. Many major 
student 
apartments 
are 
located downtown, directly 
adjacent 
to 
where 
these 
incidents took place. This 
makes 
students 
returning 
to their homes after class 
or activities late at night 
vulnerable to those types of 
unpleasant encounters.
The Ann Arbor experience 
is an implied part of the 
University 
experience. 
Although those incidents did 
not involve physical violence 
or bodily harm, those hateful 
and racist remarks offend, 
upset and discourage students 
of 
minority 
identities. 
Even 
if 
the 
University 

prioritizes diversity, equity 
and inclusion, the scope of 
student life often reaches 
beyond 
the 
University’s 
jurisdiction. Life in the city 
and at the University are 
inalienable, and the hate on 
the streets clearly affects 
student life.
In order to resolve these 
incidents, 
students, 
the 
University and the city of Ann 
Arbor should work together. 
According to the University’s 
Division 
of 
Public 
Safety 
and Security, DPSS officers 
are working with the Ann 
Arbor 
Police 
Department 
regarding campus and near-
campus 
neighborhoods’ 

safety. Since DPSS’s mission 
is to ensure the safety of 
the University community, 
it 
should 
prioritize 
protecting 
students 
from 
external 
threats, 
instead 
of 
internally 
patrolling 
students, arbitrarily making 
assumptions 
of 
drinking 
activity and authoritatively 
searching 
random 
dorm 
rooms. On March 24, 2019, 
a 
DPSS 
officer 
entered 
my dorm room and falsely 
assumed my friend and I 
were drinking. She asked us 
to show her my refrigerator 
and trash bin. After treating 
us with baseless suspicion, 
she left without apologizing. 
Compared 
to 
searching 
non-existent 
alcohol 
consumption, 
addressing 
hate incidents seems to be 

much 
more 
urgent. 
This 
suggests that DPSS should 
look outward, not inward. 
Moreover, it is imperative 
that the community recognize 
the urgency of this issue. 
Even though hate incidents 
do not necessarily involve 
physical violence or damage, 
the consequence should not 
be overlooked. As shown in 
other recent incidents nearby, 
hate 
speech 
negatively 
impacts 
the 
educational 
community and discourages 
minority students. Students 
might 
perceive 
that 
they 
do not belong to the local 
community, 
or 
develop 
a 
negative 
impression 
of 
Ann Arbor, or their college 
experience 
in 
general. 
Therefore, 
the 
city 
and 
University authorities should 
cooperate and take action, 
not 
necessarily 
through 
prosecution, 
but 
through 
proactive 
measures 
such 
as 
patrolling 
near-campus 
neighborhoods 
to 
prevent 
such fear in the first place.
Ann Arbor is home to over 
60,000 students. Regardless 
of where they come from, Ann 
Arbor is where they spend the 
majority of their time during 
their college years. In order 
for any student to feel they 
belong to this city, internally 
emphasizing diversity, equity 
and inclusion is not enough. 
These incidents especially 
target minority students and 
significantly degrade their 
experiences in Ann Arbor. 
This can negatively impact 
their university experience 
as well. Therefore, I call 
on 
the 
University 
and 
city 
authorities 
to 
work 
together to not only address 
this urgent issue but also 
prevent these instances from 
happening in the future.

Sungmin Cho can be reached at 

csungmin@umich.edu.

Julian Hansen is a senior 

International Studies major and 

member of the Climate Action 

Movement at the University of 

Michigan and can be reached at 

hansju@umich.edu.

JULIAN HANSEN | OP-ED

A case for collective climate action

Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Jess D’Agostino

Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo

Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White 
Lola Yang

ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND 
MILES STEPHENSON
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Reforming a 
system that hides 
dark money must 
be at the forefront 
of conversations

The hate on the 
streets clearly 
affects student life 

Institutions and 
the powerful reap 
the benefits of our 
current systems

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds. 
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550 
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to 
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

JOIN THE DAILY AT EDITBOARD

Students are encouraged to come to bi-weekly editboard meetings, 
held Mondays and Wednesdays from 7:15-8:45 to discuss topical issues 
and contribute to the Opinion Section’s leftsides

