As we all know voting is one of the most important rights that we have in the United States. Every four years we get to get up and elect the next president of the United States or do we? The candidate who spent the most amount of money, according to the Center For Responsive Politics, won more than 95% of House of Representative races and 75% of Senate races. So is it our votes or money that gets a candidate to win. I personally think, " it's all about the money". So where do the candidates get all this money? Lets think about this for a while, both parties to campaign for votes used millions of big-business dollars. The Republicans push more aggressively pro-business policies and spend way more than the Democrats, by $527.4 million to $343.7 million. This year the Republicans and Democrats beat all records in raising over $500 million in 'soft' money, "which is unregulated campaign finance that exploits loopholes in earlier laws supposedly intended to limit the influence of 'special interest groups' over the parties". 'Soft money' donations are supposed to be illegal with the new legislation that was passed in 2002, the so-called McCain-Feingold law. But both parties, however, have been busy opening up new loopholes. They have had help from the Federal Election Commission, appointed by Congressmen, which have already re-interpreted the rules in favor of big-business donations. "Instead of aggressively blocking end runs around the law, the Federal Election Commission has led the way to keep special-interest millions flowing."

I thought this was pretty interesting, I rewad it at http://www.boilermakers.org/resources/commentary/V38N4

A fair question to ask is why these people do it? What do they expect for their efforts and their money? The Clinton administration has been accused of letting big money donors spend a night in the White House. That seems pretty harmless compared to what Ken Silverstein reported in a story to The Nation ("My Life as an Undercover PAC", May 5, 1997).

Posing as someone from the (fictitious) United Broadcasting Corporation, he visited numerous fund-raising events of both major parties. The offers he got were surprisingly candid. At one, Anne Ekern of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (N.R.S.C.) told him that for $5,000 in PAC money, United Broadcasting could join the Republican Senate Council and send a representative to a monthly luncheon where a Republican Senator would brief participants on "legislation or anything else that might be going through" Congress. If United Broadcasting preferred to give $25,000 in soft money, it could join the Chairman's Foundation, an outfit "catered to the C.E.O," allowing him to attend "four or five small dinners annually . . . featuring Senators and senior committee staff from key committees."

 

Now we have to ask ourselves who is donating all that money and "What" do they expect to get from it. So where does that leave the rest of us? Knowing that most of us don't have $25000 to go to a dinner, will the next elected president listen to our problem or will they listen to the people who are really paying them to be there? In the end all we have is our vote and I hope that is enough.