A big thank you for all of the support I've received via e-mail and comments today. You guys make it easy to get the motivation to keep this conversation going. Nothing is going to change here.
I posted earlier today about fundraising numbers. It's been sitting on my mind ever since. On one hand, candidates would be hard pressed to reject a funding offer. On the other, they should be willing to accept the appearance of impropriety and respond. I refuse to accept the excuse that "my donors can afford large cash donations." Well...uh...Ken, you've got a growing homeless population with diminishing funds for community service organizations. For some reason, these public minded folk don't seem so interested in being "over-wealthy" in that respect. But obviously, the money has nothing to do with influence. Obviously.
We have backwards liquor laws that affirmatively hurt the consumer. We are one of 12 states that does not allow direct shipping. Yet, our liquor lobby is one of the most frequent contributors to our delegates and senators. But obviously, the money has nothing to do with influence. Obviously.
The largest set of lobbying interests in our county are land developers and real estate attorneys. But obviously, the money has nothing to do with influence. Obviously.
More importantly, why can't we talk about this? Why do we have a President that was on every T-shirt from here to San Fran that promised to accept funding, re-neg'ed on that promise, and is accepted as the "people's president"? Why is he allowed to portray himself as one to rail against Wall Street when they were his biggest donors?
So readers, what do we do? Try to buy influence back?