We all need to take an interest in the most powerful nation of the world.
Many of us see what happens when a juggernaut power decides to be creative with shaping the world and the worlds thinking.
One imagines the “powers that be” who decide and institute the many world shaping activities are representing the better interests of their constituents and this will surely lead to a brighter and better future for them.
Once in awhile populations may take stock and wonder who’s better interests are being represented, especially when one reviews the score sheet and determines very few are enriched by wide sweeping policies and legislation… particularly in times of obvious collapse, stress and uncertainty, while a favored few seem to prosper and thrive.
Coincidence is the stuff of happenstance and it is difficult to ascribe luck, either good or bad to the result yielded by the actions of our best and brightest–one has to believe the result was gauged and the plan executed with specific intention.
This is a chilling prospect when the result is seen as onerous, ill-advised and reckless… at least for the majority of citizens. A few hallowed individuals do make out like bandits–it is this disparity which raises curiosity.
How can so few do so well, while the majority slide backwards in a collapsing economy.
Perhaps there is a club you can join or perhaps there is an exclusive form of insurance? You do hear that “memberships” can have an advantage.
There are clues available which can assist in explaining the crass inequity found in current “result.”
Everyone knows that a relatively small number of wealthy people donate the lion’s share of money to political campaigns. But, you probably never suspected just how small that group actually is.
Thanks to the amazing Sunlight Foundation, we now know that just 31,385 people — one tenth of one percent of the overall U.S. population — are responsible for nearly 30 percent of the $6 billion contributed to federal campaigns and committees in the 2012 election.
While the numbers are mind-boggling, one of the charts that Sunlight built to visualize them is even more telling.
It shows that the 31,385 people who qualify as the one percent of the one percent of political donors would not even come close to filling a football stadium. And, their seats would cost a minimum of $12,950, the smallest contribution amount of any of the one-tenth-of-one-percenters.
The mildly inquisitive would be forgiven if they thought perhaps decisions of legislators might in some way reflect the preference of their sponsor rather than respect the wishes of their constituents. One can only hope the statistics shown are in no way, shape or form indicative of how influence is garnered and responded to.
One can only hope our elected representation is impervious to undue influence and conduct the “peoples” affairs in the manner prescribed by law… to the better interest of and for the people.
What would remove suspicion from the table would be “capping” of candidate financing for election campaigns.
When candidates are reduced to merit and platform issues and their positions on them, elevated assurance of integrity is preserved. In this model the better interests of the constituent is more fairly represented and it opens the door to a less elitist candidates, perhaps with far better qualifications to govern and without the insinuation of “influence peddling”.
File contribution under “Pipe dreams.”