Money for Trust

The interest triggered by the development of the Republican primaries in the U.S. grows stronger every day. The reason, though, is not that the American people are deeply concerned with the changes in foreign policy that will occur if one of the candidates ousts Barak Obama from the White House. The elections are showered with media and public attention mainly because they have mutated into something similar to a spectacular sports competition.

Today, the question of who will become the next head of state of the world’s only superpower boils down to who will win the battle for the next state. The public wants to know how many votes the competitors will score in a particular state, not what that scores say about the general outcome. How come the bookies haven’t started accepting bets on the elections results by constituency?

Elections in general, but even more so in the country of unlimited opportunities, have long ago lost their original importance as a pylon of democratic values and a platform meant to channel the will of the people. The ideas of the Founding Fathers who authored the American Constitution in the late 18th century have faded away and will be soon consumed by the darkness of political show business.

It looks as if no one is paying attention to the abundance of promises that cannot be kept and which are being given by the “wannabe” White House residents. Instead, people gladly scrimp on their budgets in order to fund campaigns designed to deprive them from sober judgment when Election Day comes. Statements featured in the presidential candidates’ speeches often hang on the edge between common sense and absurdity, or fall off that edge all together. Rick Santorum has warned of the threat of radical Islam in South and Central America, Mitt Romney promised to make things so difficult for the illegal immigrants that they will deport themselves voluntarily and Newt Gingrich voted for seven flights a day to the private sector’s new colony – the moon.

Of course, The United Sates are not the only place where this type of political show takes place. Colossal billboards showing grinning presidential candidates and short videos featuring a plethora of promises about Bulgaria’s bright future on TV are an ever-present component of every presidential race we’ve had. Not to mention the traditional pre-election concert garnished with pop folk music and meatballs to attract the electorate crowd.

I doubt that the first American presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or James Madison spent a fortune to claw their way up to power. They did not shoot commercials in lavish TV studios in order to charm the electorate with charisma and success.

Times have changed. It’s no secret that money is the key element. Not just money, but tons of money. After a 2010 decision of the Supreme Court eliminated previously established restrictions that corporations and unions had to comply with when funding presidential campaigns, the influence of the “green lizards” has grown stronger.

The new rules allow rich contributors to support their preferred candidate in the comfort of anonymity. That’s what the Occupy movement has been protesting against: the potential of money to dictate the world and to decide the outcome of the presidential race which is supposed to be an arena reserved for the public interest. In 2008, individuals, parties and other contributors spent $170 million on the presidential race alone. This year, an expense of about $40 million has already been announced by the Republican candidates alone, over the course of just about two and a half months. This is all happening in a time of a financial crisis.

In 2008, the expenses of presidential campaigns were twice those of 2004. According to economists’ estimations, the money that will be spent this year for TV commercials alone will increase 80 percent, as compared to expenditures just four years ago.

Money has always been the open secret of American politics. About two thirds of Americans believe that the government has to set a limit for campaign contributions. Performance in debates, political views, personal integrity and experienced advisors may be important for a successful campaign, but what will really make or break a political career is the dollar sign.

A few months ago, Gingrich’s rise in Iowa was hindered by millions of dollars spent by Romney’s political committee on negative campaigning against Newt. The senator from Georgia returned the gesture, stifling Romney’s advance in South Carolina with millions of dollars spent on negative public relations.

The influence of big money on high levels corrupts the political environment, instills cynicism and explains the alienation and distrust that separates Americans from their politicians. The drift towards oligarchy has become evident. 250 millionaires serve in the American Congress. About 11 percent of the members of Congress – 34 Republicans and 24 Democrats— are among the richest people in the U.S. Presidential candidate Romney’s personal fortune is twice the size of the last eight American presidents combined wealth.

In the current situation, this means a group of wealthy businessmen will choose the rich people in the Congress who are going to tell to the poor that they cannot have certain things right now because we live in a difficult time. If the decision by the Supreme Court remains the same, there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it.

In this stage of the race, Mitt Romney has about three times more delegates’ votes than his main opponent Santorum. He has already received one third of the 1,144 votes that he needs to get the nomination. On the other hand, he still fights the rebels from the tea party, the evangelicals and the hard core conservative base. With the exception of his dull victory in Virginia, he has not marked many victories in the southern part of the country.

In other words, Romney has not yet found his way into the heart of the Republican Party. But he will, eventually, because the well-known secret is that no matter who the Americans vote for, money always wins in the end.