giving fealty to where it's due

I had a thought the other day: We criticise politicians for forgetting who it was that put them in office (i.e., the voters). Well maybe the reason that the politicians dont feel the need to pay attention to the voters is because they know that We The People had little if anything to do with their being in power, and that even giving the appearance of that being true is just simply becoming too much trouble for them to go to.

Think about it, why pay attention to anybody who had nothing to do with why you're in the position of power that you occupy? I mean, civics are all well and good, if that's what got you where you are today. But what if it was merely the influence of vast sums of money and a network of oligarchs who gave you your "authority"?

If you want the person you voted for to represent you, then you need to make sure that your vote was what actually led to their holding of that "elected" office. The 2004 election should have been a shoo-in, but somehow John Kerry got the Democratic nomination, months before the actual convention. Does that sound like your vote meant anything?

My suggestion: $3000 campaign cantribution cap per candidate (even if the candidate is you). Eliminate money from PACs, corporations, Unions, and really really rich guys altogether. If you want to influence a campaign, then you're going to have to get off of your ass and knock on some doors or stuff some envelopes, not just throw money at it. If people can buy the work of others for a candidate, then doesnt that give the richest "voices" the most say? Is this a democracy, or what?

Speech which is paid for is not "free" speech, but advertising at best, and propaganda at worst. Until money is removed the equation of campaigns, the "people" will always get the short end of the stick (unless the money itself is distributed more evenly - then let it rip).