Public Office for Auction

The Supreme Court’s decision which equated money with free speech is playing out exactly as expected:

Money talks.

It is, in fact, screaming.

Big money will have an unprecedented effect on the 2012 election. The ability of so-called “Super Pacs” (Political Action Committees) to exert their will has already been demonstrated. These shady groups have seemingly unlimited resources and only a thinly veiled connection to their candidate.

As the Republican primaries progress, there are a couple of facts worth noting:

1) Newt Gingrich would have dropped out long ago if not for the millions provided by billionaire casino owner and arch-Zionist Sheldon Adelson.

2) Rick Santorum would be considering his future job prospects from a Pennsylvania armchair were it not for billionaire Foster Freiss.

Suppose either one of these guys wins the nomination and then the White House. Who do you think would be calling the shots?

As for Mitt Romney, he can write checks for his own campaign, but his Super Pac has so far spent millions for mostly negative advertising. Newt was the initial target. Now, it’s Santorum’s turn.

President Obama has railed against the High Court’s decision—and in fact did so with the nine Justices front and center during last year’s State of the Union speech. Nevertheless, Mr. Obama will be taking advantage of the fat cash too.

His logic is that despite personal opposition, to refuse the money pipeline drenching the other side would be tantamount to conceding defeat.

Imagine that.

An incumbent (who presumably will run showcasing ideas and his accomplishments) is feeling uncompetitive against a barrage of negative advertising from mostly inept Republicans. He may be right.

Politics is already a high stakes game fed by gobs of cash, but now it’s the candidates themselves who increasingly need to be personally wealthy. Without his money, Donald Trump is merely a clown show with bad hair. However, his wealth buys him undeserved consideration and attention, to the point where he was actually the Republican FRONTRUNNER for a time.

Of course, with the likes of Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, etc, etc.—standing out in THAT crowd may not be so tough. Once out the race, Trump’s endorsement was courted by those remaining, even if they felt afterwards like they needed to take a shower.


The most insidious aspect of this unrestricted spigot of cash is the likelihood it will be manipulated by our enemies. Foreign contributions are not off limits. What’s to keep the Chinese from forming a Super Pac and drowning the U.S. airwaves with ads promoting a candidate of their choosing?

Nothing.

Everyone hates negative advertising, but the haters know it works. Ask Newt Gingrich about being unable to respond to an onslaught of negative TV—he experienced it firsthand before landing his own personal Sugar Daddy.

So, what’s the answer?

For MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan and others, it is a problem that requires a constitutional amendment that would take cash out of the elective process—and presumably rely on public funding for getting the candidate’s message out.

Purchasing access to politicians and influence in their legislation has been around since the dawn of time. However, with mass media, big corporations and the potential costs of restrictive legislation, the millions spent on :30 ads dwarfs the costs of NOT insuring government compliance.

Throw a couple of bombs. Bring out past lovers and mistresses and let’s have at it! The record any politician compiles is never sufficient to pass muster with voters who increasingly need to feel a personal “connection” to their candidate.

Misstatements, past conflicting opinions and bad behavior all combine to provide the fodder for slick TV ads that can reduce a complex person into an evil, bumbling criminal who should never get the keys to the White House.

It’s been said that we get the government we deserve.
If that’s true, we’re in deep doo-doo.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com