by Derek Gulbranson

Created on: December 27, 2007   Last Updated: March 19, 2008

Absolutely, we, the people, should be the ones who's support is needed to become elected. We can see what happens when corporate charity selects our candidates. Representatives represent those who made them a representative. How can we expect our elected representatives to represent us when it is not our support that they need to get them into office?

Certainly there are few things that absolutely everyone can agree on, and the appropriate responsibilities of a democratic government is no exception. But I believe one thing we all can agree to be the responsibility of a democratic government is making the machinery of democracy work; supporting the fundamental processes and logistics that allow a democracy to function.

In our current system we vote with our votes in elections, but with our charity (dollars and more rarely, time) in campaigns. Therefor those with more to give are more valuable supporters. Candidates who wish to become elected must find people with wealth to fund their campaign. We don't teach our kids this in elementary school and perhaps no American is really comfortable with it, but it's the system we live with. Ten thousand impassioned poor people could not support a candidate's campaign the way one self-interested wealthy person could.

This keeps a lot of great candidates and leaders from running for office. We've all known someone who we know would be a great representative, who would certainly do a much better job than our current elected official. And we also know why that person doesn't run for office. We've designed our system so first thing he must do is start asking for money, and it really never stops. If you don't have money or know people that do, your chances of being elected to public office are pretty slim. Aside from that being discriminatory, elitist, feudalistic and arguably un-American, it means the skills needed to become elected do not match the skills needed to be a good elected representative.

One point that opponents of public funding raise is that the current system of pandering for charity weeds out candidates that do not have enough support in the electorate to mount a campaign. This protects us from candidates with no actual support in the electorate using free public money to broadcast their unpopular or special-interest message. Ok, I guess telethons and charity dinners and money-thermometers on campaign web sites are one way to do that. But now we've tied this "support among the electorate" to money, leaving the desires

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next Page >>