Zack Smith concludes in his column published Feb. 21 that U.S. House Republicans voted to end the public funding of presidential campaigns because of its “unpopularity” and its waste of public funds.
I believe a better explanation is because last year’s Supreme Court, in Citizen’s United v. Federal Elections Commission, declared private corporations acting as election contributors are “legal persons.” As such, wealthy corporations are now able to give even larger sums to their favored candidates. Democrat voters, consisting mostly of middle and working class, are almost certain losers because they have less money to spare.
For example, a donor willing to invest a million-dollar contribution is vastly better positioned to shape a legislator’s voting behavior than an equally talented person with just $10 to spare. A large political gift buys TV time and many other legal items of influence that generate voting shifts among the poorly informed that usually determine the winner. In turn, winners feel obligated to their large donors and legislate accordingly.
The old slogan of “one man, one vote” is obviously nonsense in most elections. In the U.S., “democratic” outcomes have long been shaped by the prejudices and dough of well-off donors. Money also buys needed name recognition. Florida’s new governor is a perfect example of success (and failure) of this system.
Editor's note: This letter refers to this column.
