Monday, April 30, 2012

Why Don't We Elect Leaders Who Won't Take the Money?

"So you think you want to start a revolution? Well, you know." Something like that goes the old song from the Beatles.

Actually, I wouldn't mind starting one. Now, I'm not talking a gun-firing revolution, not a violent revolution,  just a revolution in the way we elect our leaders.

The candidates take contributions, sometimes from private citizens whose only interest is to elect the best person, but sometimes from those who are hoping the candidate might them them out a little once they are elected.

So, the candidate gets elected, the person comes calling, congratulating the newly-elected official, and then saying, "Hey. I've got this problem. . . ." Sometimes, its a worthy cause, like, say, education. Even if it is a worthy cause, though, that is no way to run a government. Legislation shouldn't come from a system of paybacks. It shouldn't favor the rich, and as long as we have the system we do, the man with the money has a better chance of getting a legislator to draft a bill for him than others do.

Oh, most of our bills have no such influence, I would guess. But, enough of them do. Enough to sour me on the system.

How long to we let this go? Do we just resign ourselves to this being the way it is? Of a truth, I tell you, we don't have to accept this. We are the voters. If we don't want to vote for those who accept contributions, we don't have to. If it means enough to us, we can vote for the person who says, "No, I'm not going to take that money." 

No comments:

Post a Comment