Human beings are ambivalent about change, if you”ll pardon the unintended irony. Sometimes change feels good: new hair cut, new love, new job. The same things can also feel bad: ugly new haircut, divorce, difficult new boss.
So, it”s not surprising that we the people voted for change in 2008, and again in 2010, in what most would observe as opposite political directions. In 2012, both sets of change voters are upset, because nothing has changed.
One problem is the relentless Congressional gridlock because of partisan ideologs who refuse to compromise. I pity their spouses, children and employees, because a functioning relationship is all about compromise.
But, the killing blow to the changes we hoped for is the influence of money. The cost of campaigning leads to endless fundraising and the inevitable reliance on money from special interests.
In the current primary elections, because of the 2010 Citizen”s United Supreme Court decision, add in unlimited, undisclosed money provided by super PAC”s.
Research shows that corporations ultimately invest in both party”s candidates. The outcome is unimportant as long as the winner is beholden to them. I remain unconvinced that politicians are not influenced by big donors.
There are several ways to solve these impediments to real change in our Congress: campaign finance reform, which was tried and trashed by the Citizen”s United decision; rejection of the current process in favor of 100 percent publicly financed elections.
Or, an amendment to our Constitution clarifying that corporations, which are fictional entities created for investment and taxation purposes, are not entitled to the rights held by the voting citizens of the United States of America. And furthermore, money is not the same thing as speech. This change would bring permanent change.
Kate Schmidt-Hopper
Hidden Valley Lake
