The recent fund raising revelations by several of the Presidential candidates has me reviewing my long-held opinion that our government, particularly the federal government, and particularly the Presidency, is for sale to the highest bidders, has been for a long time, and likely will be in the future.

Oh, we can and have made some inroads . . . mostly local ones, and there are a few Representatives and a Senator of two who do not seem totally beholden to big money, but they are in the minority.  Example?  Charles Keating and Lincoln Savings and Loan.  To be just, both of our U. S. Senators from Arizona, one a Dem and one a Rep, improperly stepped in to protect their benefactor.  The Dem retired after that cause he knew he could not win again, but the POW guy held on, knowing that people would vote for his military service . .  and ignore the pictures of him taking his family on vacations to Charlie Keating's Bahamas mansion (true) . . . and before that . . . the 1980's saw deregulation in the banking industry . . . pushed by big banks, of course, and the result is WE the people paid out billions to cover the graft and corruption and the little ol' lady from Pasadena got screwed out of her CD that wasn't really a CD and her car got repossesed and  . . . . nuts.

What do the experts say, a run for the presidency in 2008 will cost how much?  100 million per candidate?  More?  We see candidates on both sides scurrying off to fund raisers, hugging the rich and influential . . . why even John McCain is courting many of Bush's people. . .  i spite of what Bush's people did to him in the 2000 primaries . . .and Hillary might just think she with the most funds will win . . . automatically.

As a small reaction . . . I just sent a check to a candidate to help in the primary . . . in the sad realization that we don't just vote with a ballot anymore, we also, and maybe more importantly, vote with our checkbooks . . . or a credit card on the Internet if you prefer.

Spending money on a candidate is "free speech," is that it?  We can't really, legally stop a corporation or organization from giving millions to a party or what is it a "527" organization, both of whom can then spend whatever they want to influence an election, even though you, as in individual, have some restrictions on how much you can directly give a candidate.

Do you really think when "people," through such sleight-of-hand as above, or by raising hundreds of thousands of dollars by getting others to give,  . .  don't want anything in return?  Why just today a fundraiser was named Ambassador to Belgium.  While the Senate is in recess and can't approve or disapprove of it.  What a cake job that is . . . are we having trouble with Belgium?

Corporations are not people.  Their only interest, and by default, those who head these companies, too, is TO MAKE MONEY.  When they give money to a candidate, it is not a gift, based on some philosophy -- IT IS AN INVESTMENT, and they want a damn return on it. . . . and lately, those in the oil industry (all energy, really), military services, Wall Street, pharmacy companies, and health care, not to mention manufacturers and retailers who want favorable trade policies, etc.  are damn well getting a good return on investment.

As an aside, after the debacle of the 2000 election, I remarked to some coworkers that we should all invest in Halliburton, as Tricky Dick II would surely find a way to help them, and himself.  Check out their price history if you like.  I could not do it, tangentially. 

One of the shows on radio today had some discussion of public financing of elections.  I won't get into it here, as this drags on a bit . . . except to say this:  If you could possibly add up all the tax breaks, favorable trade rules, value to corporations for a failure to enforce the laws (like environmental restrictions on energy companies), failure to pursue corporate and stock market fraud and manipulation (the value of that), the ease in which American companies can hide their profits in the Cayman Islands (to name but one place) . . . etc. if you could add the cost of all that corporate influence-buying up . . . and compare it to the cost of having only public financed elections . . .I wonder if we wouldn't actually SAVE money and level the field and get rid of some hokus pokus in the process.  This, of course, assuming that we at the same time, somehow, miraculously, eliminate corporate giving, and limit personal even more, and force TV and Radio stations to give free air time to candidates, as a public service.  In addition . . .

Wait, there I go and I said I wouldn't get into it.  Heaven forfend and earth forgive.

--"We have the best Congress money can buy." -- Will Rogers

Write on.

--KZ