For another POV
http://online.wsj.com/articles/john-...rms-1415405600
It’s Shocking How Little Was Spent on the Midterms
A single private company, Procter & Gamble, spent a third more on advertising—$4.9 billion in 2013.
By JOHN R. LOTT JR. And BRADLEY A. SMITH
Nov. 7, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
The “most expensive election in history.” Our democracy is being “bought and sold.” This election, “debased by money, shames us all.” These are some of the recent expressions of outrage about what the Center for Responsive Politicsestimates to have been $3.67 billion spent for federal offices during the 2014 midterms.
Two days before the election on “Face the Nation,” CBS’s Bob Schieffer asked viewers to name one item whose costs have gone up as much over time as campaigns. That’s easy. While campaign spending soared to $3.67 billion this year from $1.6 billion in 1998, federal government spending rose 5% faster, to $3.9 trillion from $1.65 trillion.
It is logical that these expenditures have gone up in tandem. The bigger the federal government, the more is at stake, and the harder politicians and special interests fight to see who gets to control it. If the federal government were still the 2% to 3% of GDP that it was a century ago, people likely wouldn’t care as passionately about the outcome of most elections.
It's not about the control of government money as it is about control of our government, period.
Our democracy is at stake. One man, one vote is washed away in the tide of money. The corpocracy continues.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)