You’re the one oversimplifying. In the age of unlimited contributions thorugh super PACs, the power of the big donors is greater than it has ever been, and more apparent. We’ve seen cases where one billionaire has kept some candidates in presidential primairies through super Pac donations.
Voters have puzzled for years about why many politicians have ignored their wishes on immigration and trade deals and other issues, issues that 60%+ of Americans have opposed, since NAFTA and before. But the politicians still voted against the majority’s wishes.
Once voters find ways to organize and offset the power and influence of big donors, then they will have a chance to elect people who will actually repreasent them.
The use of the term “bought and paid for” has become more and more common for a reason, and the power of big donors is far and away the biggest reason politicians ignore the majority of voters who actually put them in office, and will continue to ignore then until the voters find ways to organize and elect politicians who are not bought and paid for.
And there is a reason for the term “follow the money”. You can piddle around with many other lesser factors, but it’s the money that is the major factor that influences our politicians’ votes these days.
Once voters find ways to organize and offset the power and influence of big donors, then they will have a chance to elect people who will actually repreasent them.
And there is a reason for the term “follow the money”.
**************************
The Tea Party was successful in getting many conservatives elected in 2010 that changed the composition of the congress, without obsessing over the influence of big money. Unfortunately, Republican leadership is corrupt and fought them relentlessly. But the point remains, more responsible people were elected based primarily on highlighting voting records and endorsements of other resected people.
I appreciate your concerns over the influence of money in politics. It’s a valid concern. But asking people to “follow the money” is a bridge too far for most ordinary citizens who have little time or inclination to get into the weeds of complex and myriad political funding machines for a multiplicity of candidates. Most people are challenged to focus on a sitcom for 30 minutes. Sadly, attention spans in this country are short, low information voters abound, and apathy is widespread.
However, the Tea Party demonstrated that it’s possible to elect people that actually represent them without trying to drag people through a labyrinth of money trails and associated political motivations. Not saying its not important or influential; its just too much financial detail and numbers for most people to follow.
How would you propose that voters organize and offset the power and influence of big donors? And given the innumerable sources of money, and a multiplicity of candidates and incumbents, how would you show all those byzantine money trails?