Here’s what I’d like to see: Elections earned and not purchased. Sure there has to be a certain amount of work to get elected, but based on how much money you have can be the difference in how much ground you can cover in a short amount of time.
Let’s, for the sake of argument, say we have two people running for president of these here United States.
Candidate A: This person is by and large the most suitable candidate for the office. This person is worldly, smart and well spoken. This person will enter into office and solve every single problem that plagues the United States efficiently and effectively in that person’s first year in office. This person has every skill of every president since Wooden Teeth Washington and knows exactly when to use those skills to resolve conflict and would be successful every time. This person will make every single Miss America contestant wish for something else, because this person will create world peace! I think you’d agree, who doesn’t want this person in office? Well, here’s the catch -- this candidate has $12 in the bank and can probably raise another $100 on his own.
Candidate B wants to invade Canada and Mexico. This person wants to abolish baseball and replace our national pastime with an annual watermelon seed spitting contest. This person will run on the platform, if you don’t want to pay doctors’ bills, don’t get sick. This individual will go against every moral fiber that’s left. This person will cheat on their spouse and beat their children and advocate that you do the same. This person will promise to start World War III and promise that once we win they will rename the U.S. North Mexico Incorporated, but if we lose Š well, whatcha gonna do? We gave it our best. This candidate has a bottomless supply of money because he’s got the backing of corporations and their special interests.
So, who would win? Yup, welcome to North Mexico Incorporated. Hardly seems fair that world peace won’t prevail, but hey, at least the almighty dollar will, so at the end of the day the 99 percent take it right where the sun don’t shine again. Only this time we can finger someone for the crime: the Supreme Court.
Sure, they’re calling it some sort of free speech thing and who doesn’t believe in free speech? Hell, I talk me some free speech everyday; I’m doing it right now! I’m teeing off on those that run North Mexico Incorporated (I suppose I should wait until after the next election before I can officially call us that). But frankly, calling it a free speech issue is the ultimate form of dumbing down those that headline skim for their information. It’s a gross oversimplification. If we were going to peel back the layers, one could begin with a simple question. What political party holds the majority on the highest court of in the land? Five were appointed by Republican presidents and four were appointed by Democrats. But here’s the bigger underlying issue -- is it possible for political pressure to interfere with the decisions of our highest court?
I don’t know if what I’m suggesting is true, even though my gut is telling me that it is, but when you take the last 40 years of trying to curb campaign donations and basically untether it during a tsunami I gotta believe we’re looking at a ridiculous election cycle. There will be no end in sight. It will become a mud-flinging affair engrossed in idiocracy and characterized by the maligning of the other candidate. It could very well turn into he who makes the biggest lie and gets us to believe, wins.
So to the Supreme Court I say, shame on you! Where are your heads at? We have people starving on the streets and all we are able to do is put a law into play that protects more millionaires and billionaires. What the hell is up with that?