“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
~ Franklin D. Roosevelt
Okay, okay . . . I get it!
I hear the liberal message . . . the Supreme Court has killed the democratic process!
Supreme Court decisions in the Citizens United and the McCutcheon cases now make it possible for associations (aka political action committees), corporations, unions, and individuals to buy the voting allegiance of any candidate for political office and to pay to manipulate the outcome of any ballot initiative.
Liberals are right and I never argue with anyone who’s right even if they are left.
But so what?
So what if Citizens United allowed a select few billionaires in 2012 to blatantly pay hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase candidates, legislators, and legislation to make themselves even richer and even more powerful?
By the way, why these incredibly privileged people need more money and more power is beyond me but, for the sake of this column, I’ll just grant that they do and move on.
Who cares if Sheldon Adelson can legally give millions of dollars to a candidate like Newt Gingrich in order to control a President Gingrich’s agenda to benefit Adelson’s agenda to accumulate more money and more power?
If voters had elected Gingrich, a marginal candidate who can’t even control his weight, wouldn't those voters have gotten nothing but a marginal president who couldn't even control his weight?
Perhaps that is why voters did not elect Gingrich to any political office in 2012.
And, despite the hundreds of millions of political action committee dollars that poured into Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, Mitt was soundly beaten by Barack Obama.
You remember Mitt Romney, don’t you?
He was the candidate who rode into history on election night in the back seat of his son’s Ford after having toured the country for months in convoys of taxpayer supported, secret-service protected, armor-plated Chevrolet Suburbans equipped with flashing lights, traffic signal controls, and satellite communication systems.
So, I say again . . . so what if the Supreme Court thinks it is a good idea to allow associations, corporations, unions, and individuals to donate unlimited amounts of money to wooden politicians like Mitt Romney?
Is it fair to say that the Gingrich and Romney 2012 defeats prove that not even hundreds of millions of dollars can compel voters to vote for billionaire donors' favorite candidates?
If so, would it be fair to say that advertising is just advertising and anyone who would decide to vote for a particular candidate or for or against a ballot initiative because of something they saw or heard in a campaign ad would have to be a fool?
And, in the final analysis, would it then be fair to say that American voters are anything but fools?
Comments? Questions? Contact the author at: firstname.lastname@example.org or Tweet: @DavyZJones