Publicity is the method of control for the political system, or rather, the money to get it.

[originalpckelly]

Before you ever get into a voting booth, even in a primary, the decision has already been made for you. If you don't recognize a name on the ballot, and you don't know the person in daily life, will you vote for a candidate? Simply put, you won't.

Publicity is the life blood of politics, and only in cases where someone is independently wealthy or has fame for some other reason, will they ever get publicity without being picked in a money election. If they are personally wealthy, chances are they made that money off of a corporation, developing land, or owning it. Their interests are already aligned with keeping this national company town. If someone's famous without money, then they might be able to be democratic in their solicitation for donations, but I'd bet against it. Why not make it easier and take donations from people with lots of money to give you?

One might say that the little people of this country can vote in the money election, if only we could limit political contributions. There's a problem, how does one go about getting enough publicity to get those many small donations, if what one seeks to gain with the money is publicity?

The reason the money election happens is the numbers game with a representative system. It's inherently impossible for one person to go around meeting everyone for any office other than city council, maybe state office in a medium sized state, and even federal office in the smallest states. But as soon as it gets high enough in numbers, then the money game starts.

One has to seek out circles of friendship where the money is, so that one can meet the people who can publicize one's campaign.

If they like what they hear, they'll be more apt to donate, after all, would you donate to someone who's against your interests?

This is how the interests of the wealthy are placed above those of the vast majority of people in this country. You hear about PACs, well, PACs mean absolutely nothing in this system. They donate about as much as a single person can individually! So their influence means almost nothing. What a PAC donation really shows is what group fundraiser was held for a candidate. This becomes harder when someone doesn't take PAC money.

Some of you have had contact with this system, some of you here may have had enough money to donate the full amount, and some of you are probably the politicians who received the money. You know what's going on, or maybe you never really stepped back to think about it. Well, there you go. A pretty rational argument that shows we're not as free a country as we'd like to think.

"We need public financing of campaigns!"

And do you really think that will ever happen for low level candidates? If this is how the powerful people control our system, will they give it up that easily?

We give people money in the Presidential election, but that's the election where it doesn't matter. By the time someone runs for President, they've already been picked by this system, for the most part.

While PACs and all the other campaign independent organization don't matter for donations to campaigns, they matter as another source of publicity, but don't tend to spring up unless the person has already been selected by this method.

It's pretty fucked up.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. K&R

I hate it when someone takes the time to put together a serious thought piece like this, and it sinks in the midst of all those "Rec this post if..." and "Jon Stewart for Dictator" and Sarah Palin Meets Octomom threads.