The presidential election? Why should we bother?
After all, the Supreme Court has said that money is speech. It's really all about money. What we need is something that gives money its proper importance. We need an auction, not an election. We need something that counts the money because the money is what really counts.
We should turn all the presidential fundraising into an auction. Then you just count the money, and the candidate who brings in the most wins. He or she automatically becomes president. That way, we avoid all those mind-numbing, repetitious TV ads, and we can use that money to solve real problems.
There are many better uses for all that campaign money. So, we the people keep the money. For example, the Koch brothers, alone, have contributed $60 million this year to defeat Obama. We could put that money into infrastructure or health care. We could use it for something besides providing huge windfall profits for the TV industry. We, the public, own the airwaves; we should benefit from the elections, if anybody does.
But, you say, an auction doesn't sound very democratic; it sounds more like selling public office. But isn't that what's going on anyway? Have you ever looked up the word "plutocracy" in your dictionary?
The definition of "plutocracy" in my dictionary is "a government or state in which the wealthy rule." We used to be a democracy.
Sixty million dollars contributed in one election. That's amazing. What does that money buy for those people? What it buys, they tell us, is access. They say that contributing money like this gives you access to the candidate. I say that if you're Mitt Romney, and you take $60 million from David Koch, then David Koch is going to have access 24/7, rain or shine, winter, summer, spring, even in your dreams. It means that David Koch is your daddy, Mitt, your daddy.
L. P. McGovern