How much representation can we afford?

The obvious implication is the money. The money is a big deal when it comes to the now traditional methods of running for office, where advertising usually helps gain more votes*. The less obvious implication is that those who pay more “get more representation”.

Few are so naïve as to think that the reported $1 billion being contributed by companies towards candidates in the 2008 campaigns are for the most altruistic reasons. One can suspect most companies expect to get a return on their “investment” with most of the money coming from the federal treasury, taxes and borrowing combined.

Now in fairness in America, they should be able to do this. And in fairness, we voters should be able to vote our individual votes even after exposure to all the media campaigns. Whether the campaign contributions are trumping individual voter values is to be decided by the voters, and no one else.

Whether voters should be impressed or not with a candidate’s ability to raise funds is also a voter decision.


* Don’t discount the other expenses paid for by campaign contributions, to include transportation by private jets, personal staff salaries, overhead like offices and take out food and hotel rooms, and other quality of life and TV issues, like haircuts and make up artists. For example, a $100 contribution might pay for 9 minutes of private jet flight time, or a few shrimp for a staffer eating take out in Las Vegas, or a special lunch with a local school official.