There's too much money in politics

From what we can ascertain concerning the present political environment, there are three steps a candidate must take to have a chance of being elected to any major office:

1. Get on the phone and start asking people for money.

2. Get on the phone and start asking people for money.

3. Well, you get the picture.

When one examines this major requirement for mounting a serious campaign, we wonder why anyone would even be interested in going down such an unseemly path. The fact is that lots of qualified candidates refuse to get involved in such a system -- and many good public officials get out because they are sick of the process.

A recent poll conducted by ABC News concluded that an overwhelmingly majority of Americans believe there is too much money involved in politics.

Unfortunately, it seems that, in reality, we are moving in a direction that will make it even worse. The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows major increases in contributions by corporations is an example.

As for how the money is spent, the great bulk appears to be directed into television commercials -- and, perhaps most recently, operation of telephone banks.

And, at least for us, those are among the most annoying aspects of the modern political campaign.

(This is the proper time for the disclaimer that the newspaper industry competes with television for political advertising dollars -- usually in a not particularly successful manner. We maintain that most political ads in newspapers are more informative and less negative in nature, but we'll leave it to our readers to decide if that is true).

At any rate, we know we are not alone in having more than our fill of inane television advertising -- most recently in the U.S. Senate race in Arkansas. The ads are an insult to the intelligence of the voters, but apparently someone, somewhere, has convinced all these candidates that is the most effective course.

We suppose part of it involves increasing name recognition, but at what cost? The old adage about winning the battle but losing the war comes into play at some point. The war that is lost relates to a decline in civility, reason and fair play throughout our society.

The amount of money spent on this type of advertising (much of it falling just short of outright lies where opponents are concerned) contributes to the lack of respect we all ultimately have for our system.

Of course, this same process is in play where national campaigns are concerned, the only difference being that virtually all the money is channeled into the so-called "swing states" in presidential elections.

The result is an avalanche of money that pushes everything aside in its path.

Television advertising is the greatest single force increasing the price of national political campaigns, according to the Washington Post. Huge sums of money are needed, with most of it coming from corporations and various special interest groups.

With this background, it is very difficult (if not impossible) for public officials to emerge beholden to the forces which, in effect, put them in office.

As Rep. Thomas Sestak, a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, points out -- this process makes it difficult for officials to compromise on key issues after the election. The special interest groups gave the money, which paid for the television ads -- they then expect a return on their investment.

It's a sad process, but we have all been involved in its creation over a period of time. You can turn off the television and you can hang up the telephone, but the candidates (and their aides) just stay on the phones, raising more and more money and pouring it into what is an increasingly distasteful system.