Candidates spent $4 billion on the mid-term elections.
What was the battle cry that won the day? “Stop spending!”
Those who said it loudest spent the most.
Rand Paul, the champion of cutting spending, spent over $10 million on the general election — in Kentucky!
He bought so much advertising that some of the local television stations ran out of time “inventory.”
She’s worth $1.3 billion.
Johnson, a tea party guy who, according to himself, wants to ‘stop all the spending,’ spent over $8 million — four times the amount Feingold spent.
But alas, this will continue. Our Supreme Court has decided that corporate money equals free speech. It’s doubtful those who won — the ones who benefited most from this money — will pass legislation that stops the flow to their own campaigns.
The problem with government spending is not government spending. It’s a big country and a big government. The problem is that our understanding is minimal and our priorities are distorted.
And there are groups that are willing to spend a lot of money to make sure it stays distorted.
If they would start with cutting campaign spending by creating a system with public funding of elections, it would save a lot of money, be more informative, be more positive — and make for a healthier mood in the country and a better democracy.
But that would require a cut in spending.