Ms. Snip: I heard someone say it’s all about money. I think they were talking about politics. Do you think it’s all about money?
Ms. Snipe: Of course. It’s been about money for a long time but as the wealth gap grows it becomes more and more about money.
Ms. Snip: But why? Do people have so much money they can afford to try to buy politicians?
Ms. Snipe: Well, the majority of Americans don’t have that kind of money and that’s why our politics, elections, advantages and such belong more and more to the very few at the top. They have enough money to buy whole elections if they want. And, unlike the majority of Americans, they don’t need that money for food, heat, rent, mortgage, insurance, health care and all the things the rest of us do.
Ms. Snip: Wow, I don’t believe very many of them have any idea about how we live. What we need.
Ms. Snipe: Some are smart enough to know and are also concerned enough to try to help. Without them we would be in really dire straits. But, as it is, you can see what money is doing just by watching the current races.
Ms. Snip: Yes, I have heard them say we need funds. We need to organize. That all takes money.
Ms. Snipe: Just imagine if there hadn’t been 20 some candidates running. Even now when it’s whittled down, the cumulative amount of money spent is mind boggling. And, of course, when the Supreme Court said that corporations were individuals and allowed that to impact fund raising it got even more outrageous.
Ms. Snip: Are the caucuses making any difference.
Ms. Snipe: I think the caucus style of selection is a joke. People clamored about Iowa for months. Then we look at the facts. You have to attend in person to be counted. So, if restricts families with children. Someone has to stay with the kids. One third of shift workers would be unable to attend. Many families cannot afford babysitters so only one parent would be able to join the caucus. Distance from home, lack of information, affordability, physical condition – many reasons for lack of representative turnout.
Ms. Snip: Wow, I never thought about that. But I see your point,
Ms. Snipe: Then look at the reports about who is participating. One newscast reported that 91% of all caucus attendees were white – 91%! That statistic does not at all present a realistic look at the US population.
In addition, a caucus might be too difficult for many citizens to even get to. Iowa has large rural, farming communities. How well represented are they. The reaction in the country is laughable. Iowa, Iowa, Iowa – first and so important. Ridiculous. A person must be awfully bored if they have nothing to do but sit through the hours and hours of predicting Iowa and then hours and hours of post-analyzing Iowa.
Ms. Snip: What do you suggest?
Ms. Snipe: A tighter limit on campaign contributions. Even a limit on campaign spending would be nice but probably an impossible goal. Making sure individuals contriubting are indeed individuals and not large corporations investing in a candidate. Stop the growth and mishandling of money to PACs. They might as well change the definition to what it really is: PAC = the Pay Anonymously Culture.
Ms. Snip: Anything else?
Ms. Snipe: Oh, lots and lots. Haven’t even toughed the blind partisanship exhibited. Haven’t touched the disgusting behavior of the number of current officials we have. Haven’t even touched the miserable boot-licking actions of many elected officials. Get the money OUT. Get blind partisans OUT. Get those who try to disenfranchise voters OUT. Never before have I been so disappointed in the behavior and consequences of my country’s government. I’m sad.
Ms. Snip: Guess it’s time to write to elected officials again.
Ms. Snipe: At least weekly. Daily if possible.