Primaries show problem of money in politics
Now that our primary election is over, there are several political phenomena we've all seen that need to be connected.
First, we hear comments about the failure and/or possible doom of the Republican Party (especially from the Tea Party, but also from others). It is not doomed; it is not even significantly threatened. But we should all be asking this fundamental question; what is the purpose of any political party in a closed "Two Party" system?
Simply stated, the political party is supposed to vet (qualify) candidates for political office. In that regard, the Republicans have failed miserably. The Republicans had 17 announced presidential candidates, along with several more poised in the wings, not because they were all qualified, but because they could all afford to mount a campaign.
How could that many candidates possibly be vetted, especially since the effective leadership of the Republican Party has fundamentally moved away from their elected officials?
Since the "Citizens United" court ruling, which legalized the seemingly unlimited funds being dumped into politics today, the elected party officials are just pawns. The real political power lies in the "Super PACs", whose financial backers (and causes) are sometimes not even known.
Plus, the "everyday" political power also lies in the biased "talking heads" (like Fox News and/or hate radio), who often receive funding from "agenda driven" foundations, institutions, and trusts.
Yet Republicans have generally not supported overturning the "Citizens United" ruling, getting money out of politics, since Citizens United is itself a conservative non-profit organization.
All that corporate money is going to Republicans, right? Of course not.
Okay, so some corporate money is going to the Democrats. Is it more than the 17 candidates received? No, but the Democrats do not have to beat 17 Republican candidates; they only have to beat one.
Philip Graf
Rolling Meadows