By Ken Lindsay freelance writer
Saturday, September 09, 2006

The problem with our government is that the public accepts the delusion that we have a government that represents the people. In the beginning, less than one percent of the people determine who goes on the primary ballot.

These people are picked on the "can win election theory". In reality it is the voluntary support of this minority of special interest campaign contributors that nominates our political candidates. Do you think the objective of this "nominating committee" is to find candidates who represent "the people?" I think not.

I assert, in order to have a "democracy", we must have "democratic funding" of elections. In other words, taxpayer money should be the source of these funds. Use of taxpayer money, I believe, does require that we set far lower limits on campaign spending for each political office.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the free speech amendment to the constitution in a absurd interpretation. They say, "Money contributed to political campaigns and for political ads is speech; therefore, does not allow commercial public endorsement of a candidate by individuals and certain organizations be banned." This ruling gives the wealthy and special interest groups much louder voices than ordinary citizens. Their absurd ruling means that the concept of "one person one vote" is but a myth.

Even the adoption of full public funding of election campaigns would not eliminate the influence the wealthy and special interest groups. Full public funding would not eliminate privately funded endorsements of candidates. However, I think these should also be regulated.

One possibility is to require such an endorsement be preceded and followed by a notice that it is a paid political advertisement. Further, such advertisement must include the individual's name, employer's or name of organization, and the cost of the advertisement. In other words, everything possible must be done to dilute the effect of private wealth on the election process.

Sadly, a great many American citizens seem to gain a measure of consolation in expensive campaigns from being told that the candidate derived most of his financial support from a host of small contributors. That falls short of public funding. Until we the people work to get real campaign reforms, the system of corporate and special interests will continue.

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Article 2 ]

Send mail to webmaster@anvil-of-we-the-people.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2006 Anvil of We-the-people for Election Campaign Reform
Last modified: 04/06/06