Click here for a video in American Sign Language

The single most important issue in America is being virtually completely ignored. Money has too much influence in our elections. The role money plays, is to amplify the influence and power of those with a great deal of money: corporations and very wealthy individuals. Relative to millionaires and big corporations, our shrinking middle class, and our growing number of unemployed and working poor citizens cannot compete in any way shape or fashion that can be considered equal.

As access to mainstream media is the most expensive, and most effective way to inform voters. Wealthy individuals have a great deal more influence in determining which candidates are heard. Candidates that are supported by wealthy individuals and large corporations might not always support what is best for the vast majority of the nation's population, but would support large tax breaks for their income brackets and lax laws and enforcement on corporations.

In a democracy it is the government's duty to hold fair elections. For good reason, our nation's leaders have ever called for fair elections in nations abroad. It is the mark of a thriving democracy.

Information is the life blood of elections in a democracy. Information is essential to voters, if they are to make informed, accurate decisions about who they think is best for the office. If something is hindering the flow of information from candidates to voters, it weakens our democracy.

Currently in America, we allow money to determine how well a candidate can inform the public about their candidacy. If funding limits a candidates ability to inform voters, it limits voter's access to this information, and therefore weakens our democracy as our elections are not fair. We are allowing funding to play a major role in determining the viability of a candidate, having perhaps more influence than candidates' ideas, platform, and qualifications, as a candidate that is in the media and known is more likely to get votes than one that is not.

There is only ONE force that should have and major effect in democratic elections: the votes of citizens.

What do we gain from the role funding plays in our elections? We gain nothing. But in addition to preventing candidates from having a level playing field in elections, and limiting voter access to information, the influence of money in our elections does raise concerns of indebtedness, political favors, and corruption.

Chester Kelsey supports public financing of elections to ensure all voters have easy, abundant, and equal access to information about their candidate choices.

A more in-depth mathematical explaination of some aspects of funding follows.

Citizens may donate up to $2,300 to a candidate in the primary election, and another $2,300 in the general elections for a total of $4,600. Corporate P.A.C.s can donate up to $5,000 in the primary and another $5,000 in the general election, for a total of $10,000.

For example, it could take as few as 140 contributors for a candidate to amass one million dollars with which to buy media time: 70 human contributors x $4,600 = $322,000 + 70 corporate contributors, through their P.A.C.s x $10,000 = $700,000 Add those together for $1,022,000, over one million dollars! Or if a candidate is getting $100 contributions from middle class Americans it would take 10,000 contributors! $100 x 10,000 = $1,000,000.

If contributors are only able to give $20 to each candidate they want to support (because there are about 469 Federal elections this year, and $20 x 469 = $9,380): 50,000 contributors! x $20 = $1,000,000. Whereas if they donated the max of $4,600 to one candidate in each of the 469 elections, they could invest: $4,600 x 469 = $2,257,400. That is a level of political influence middle class Americans will never be able to realize. The playing field is not even.

Obviously it is easier for candidates that are going to represent the interests and values of corporations and extremely wealthy persons to gather funds with which to access media and become known to the populace, than it is for candidates that represent the interests of middle class Americans.

Two good questions to ask are: 1. Why should we allow how much $$$$$ a candidate has, to limit how well they can inform the public? 2. What are voters gaining by letting $$$$$ determine how well a candidate can inform the citizens of the U.S.A.? We gain nothing by allowing $$$$$ to determine how well a candidate can inform voters. We gain nothing by letting $$$$$ limit political debate and the spread of information about candidate choices. Only more accurate representation of the populace's values and interests can result from the free flow of political thought.

Voters have a right to information about all their candidate choices. Even disregarding whether a candidate has a right to inform the public, the public has a right to be informed about their political options. At least in a thriving democracy they sure do. And last I checked, we Americans were avid democracy-lovers. I know I sure am. An informed voter, can make informed decisions. Without information about our candidate choices, which is essential to fair elections, America cannot possibly be a strong and healthy democratic nation.