Big Money Still needs To Be Eliminated

The map above (from Mother Jones) shows the states where some Koch brothers money was spent to try and influence the election (either from individual donations, donations from their corporations, or through their super-PAC Americans for Prosperity). Note that they spent at least some in nearly every state (except for a few in the Northeast). And then doesn't count the money spent by donors like Sheldon Adelson (the casino owner who spent a minimum of $60 million of his own money) or the American Crossroads super-PAC of Karl Rove (that spent hundreds of millions of dollars) -- and there were many other big spenders for the GOP.

A week ago the rich donors, corporations, super-PACs, and other outside groups had already spent more than all the outside spending of the last eight presidential campaigns added together. And when all the spending is completed and added up at the end of this month, it will probably top that. The only saving grace in light of this ridiculous and unethical (in my view) spending to try and buy a presidency, is that it didn't work.

The campaign was so long this time that I think most voters didn't need any TV ads to help them make up their minds about who to vote for. There was plenty of time to examine the candidates, and by election day (probably weeks in advance of it) the huge majority of voters knew who they would vote for. I could be wrong, but I think that most of the so-called "undecideds" were more undecided about whether to vote than who to vote for if they did.

But just because the rich guys weren't able to buy the presidency, doesn't mean the huge amount of outside money spent on campaigns is not a very dangerous thing. It is. For one thing, it gives the rich a much bigger (and louder) voice in our elections than other citizens have. And it worked better on the smaller races, such as the campaigns for the House of Representatives. The fact is that some of those running for the House got the benefit of a lot of outside spending, and once elected they feel they owe a debt to those that spent that money. If that money didn't buy their vote, it at least bought a lot of access to that politician.

That is where the biggest danger lies -- in the perception (and many times the reality) that our politicians are being bought, and vote in the interests of their rich donors more than in the interest of their constituents (and both parties have some of these politicians). We must overturn this (which sprang from the terrible Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. FEC), even if we have to pass a constitutional amendment to do it. We must start right now to put pressure on our politicians, and we must continue that pressure until they act.

The truth is that corporations are not people, and money is not speech -- and we need to get both out of our electoral politics.