Monday, November 12, 2012

The Problem with Election Funds and Evil

I heard a lot of people say they voted for Obama because he was the "lesser of two evils." It's sad that people had to think that any of our political were evil. Growing up we were taught to have a deep respect for the President of the United States. Times were definitely different then. Certainly no one presidential candidate collected over a billion dollars. With so many people out of work you would think that the billion dollars raised could have been used in more productive ways than launching smear campaigns. The truth is that 1 billion dollars equals about the salary of 20,000 median income families (that is families that earn 50,000 per year.) Putting that in perspective - The campaign funds from Obama could have easily housed and fed the entire population of Adams County, Wisconsin.  Mitt Romney's campaign funds, by the same token, could have supported 18,000 families. He could have given 50,000 to every citizen in Jasper, IN and still had enough left over to run some ads. But neither candidate did that. Not one penny of either candidates campaign money was used to support a needy family, raise a community center, or feed the homeless.

In turn instead of having an unbiased and fair election we had the battle of the bucks. Big bucks run elections. That's why when you mention people like Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Laurie Roth, or Virgil Goode most Americans have no earthly clue who you are talking about. Most media outlets won't even talk to them or take them seriously. They have nowhere near the monetary backing that major party candidates receive.

The question is this: How many of you would have voted for the candidate that took his campaign money and used it to help a failing business? What if they took some of that campaign money and actually used it to support a wounded soldier pay off his mortgage? Perhaps they took a bit of the money and opened a community center in a troubled neighborhood? What type of media coverage would this have given them?

Of course neither candidate did that. There is supposed to be laws regarding how the campaign funds can be used. Yet there was proof that those legal issues of obtaining funds weren't exactly followed and there wasn't even a "bad boy" or a hand slap given for the offense. It was met with a simple "oops" and an "oh well."

I'm not angry over the election results. Honestly, it wouldn't matter which candidate won, though I wasn't even the least bit surprised by the results. The media does an awesome job of making the majority of people see and think what they want them to see and think. They seemed to even promote fallacies and twist facts in order to confuse and manipulate.

 My hope was that we had enough votes for one third party candidate to open up new options in our political system. That didn't happen.

The truth is that the only real change in this country can come from people actually waking up to realize that politics isn't about what is best for the country - it is about what is best for the party. Money and power run this country.

George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Our founding father's didn't believe in big government, and today our Federal government is growing like a wildfire out of control through each of our towns and businesses. Some of us see the scorching and realize we need to push it back before we are consumed, while others bask in the heat believing that they will never be burned. They feed the flames.

We have serious issues at home. We have high unemployment with more businesses each day cutting jobs. We have higher prices on commodities and lowering of incomes. Which brings us to remember another great insight of our first president, "Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected." We seem to have forgotten what our moral duty entails.

No comments: