Let's Take the Dollars out of Democracy

I am writing this on the Fourth of July, just before a lunch of grilled hot dogs followed by fireworks at the Embarcadero, and my thoughts turn to my good fortune that the founding fathers of this country decided that individual liberty should be the hallmark of the nation they intended to build, that the opportunity to express oneself freely should be safeguarded, that a construct  for a fair and representative election process for the leadership of the nation should be created along with a means for its preservation. I am thankful I do not live in Syria or Iran or North Korea. And so on this day when we as Americans celebrate our good fortune it seems a propitious time to talk about money in politics, about how its accepted role is leading us toward an erosion of these aforementioned liberties and rights, particularly now that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporate entities should have the right to express themselves with financial politics, that we should consider them as we do individual American citizens in terms of First Amendment rights. We have seen how the huge resources of large companies can sway the outcome of a proposition or an election, crossing state borders to do so. Is that what our forefathers had in mind? Is that fair and equal?
It appears to me that fewer and fewer large corporations (the ones with the money to spend on political contributions and beneficial legislation) see patriotism as a first priority. Some have moved their corporate offices to Ireland and other countries with forgiving tax structures to avoid paying the taxes to this nation that pay for the systems that secure our liberties. Others have deliberately victimized the American public with high risk investments for corporate and personal profit and when they failed then sought and accepted bail-outs from the very same taxes they attempted to avoid but which were dutifully payed by individual Americans - and then used that money to reward their CEOs and to pay lobbyists to influence politicians already indebted to them because of political contributions and other, less obvious, support.
But to me the real point, the underlying point, is that money should not be the grease for the wheels of democracy. Yes, yes, I know, it has always been that, to one degree or another. But should we accept crime, for instance, just because its always been done? There's nothing in the constitution that says we must accept dollar democracy, it is simply the will of a wealthy minority. Such as those who lead the aforementioned corporations. Nor do I believe this was the intention of our forefathers whose efforts we celebrate today, who rather than suffer similar injustices took the initiative to declared independence and throw off the mantle of fiscal and political oppression. They recognized that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"*, and determined that this not be their fate. To me, dollar democracy is an issue about which the silent majority has remained silent, trudging stoically onward rather than calling it into question.
My point is money has no place in politics, it is not needed. Particularly in the age of the internet. For arguably the first time in our nation's history direct communication with each and every individual citizen is no longer at issue. We should use what we have been given.
This election year, both political parties are poised to spend a combined 2.5 to 3 billion dollars on the presidential campaign. And the current national debt is $15,724,907,364,995 and growing. And yes, there are still Americans living in poverty. Why not spend those large amounts of money to help the less fortunate or to pay down the national debt rather than throw it away on a political campaign that could be resolved without it? (Unless, of course, one is more interested in personal gain than the will of the people.)
The purpose of big money in political campaigns today is not to support but to overwhelm and overpower the opposition, to bludgeon the voters by innuendo and half truths into subscribing to one side over the other. To influence blocs of voters and those in a position to effect the votes of others. The American ideals of truth, the addressing of real needs, the desire to improve lives; little of this is on the table with big money politics. And ultimately the power money wields serves to create a ruling class within a democracy.
        Few can afford to run for national office except the wealthy or those candidates supported by the wealthy. The median wealth of the United States Congress is $2.63 million. There are 250 millionaires in Congress. On the other hand, the median American income is $26,364. That particular American is seldom found in Congress.
But what if? What if the American people set about changing the system? Just as our forefathers did on this day that we now celebrate? If we used the tool of democracy that is available to us, if we used the internet and social media, and through this medium orchestrated change?
What if political campaigns were to become completely and solely virtual? No television blitzes, no billboards, no expensive road trips? No big money? What if all the candidates were limited to a virtual representation of themselves and their qualifications on a blog or website? No more dirty tricks, no unseemly name calling or slander? What if the incumbent president was no longer taken away from the country's business for months at a time in order to campaign? What if there were no more intrusions into people's lives? What if every citizen was expected to be a responsible voter, to hold themselves accountable for learning the issues, expected to visit each candidate's web site, expected to learn about each of the candidates, to form their own opinions without assistance from big money politics? Let each candidate construct their web or blog site to reveal their plans, their views, their solutions, to show their family pictures, to show their videos, to present themselves in their own way, to help us learn all about them. No negativity, no name calling, no slander.
Perhaps this kind of campaigning would return responsibility for choice to the American people and compel us to take a more active role in our government instead of a passive one? And along the way ensure a government of the people that truly derives "their just powers from the consent of the governed"*.

* The United States Declaration of Independence.