The case for public election financing
It isn't a secret that big money holds more sway over our elected officials than the common voter. Members of our Congress spend hours each day looking to raise campaign cash for their next heated battle over which candidate gets to represent the rich and mighty for the next term.
Now, with the Supreme Court making things even worse, yes worse, with the McCutcheon v FEC case accentuating Citizens United, our voices in this beloved democracy will continue to fade.
An important step along with amending the Constitution to state that money isn't speech and that corporations aren't people is to demand the public financing of elections. The last time I checked, my representative hasn't voted in my interests for protecting our environment and GM's board of directors and shareholders aren't in jail for faulty ignition switches killing people.
Public financing can provide two important changes for Congress and for their constituents. First, with public financing of elections, people running for an elected position will be placed on a level playing field without the obligation of having to favor the special interests or wealthier contributors who previously may have donated to their campaign.
Second, public financing of elections will allow elected officials to do what they were meant to do -- represent. By eliminating countless hours raising campaign cash, members of Congress can meet with voters in their district or their state. They will be able to spend more time researching an issue before knocking on your and your neighbor's door to find out firsthand, without sending their staff, what has been happening in the neighborhood.
And with the information you've given them, they can help make your life and the surrounding community a better place to live. It's really that simple. Idealistic, yes. But simple.