Elections are determined by big money
Term limits are crucial for representatives and senators
Editor, The Times:
I wish more articles were written on a consistent basis about the influx of money into our political process [“Funding state elections from near, afar,” page on, Nov. 3].
There is no question that candidates who are more qualified, yet do not have the money power behind them, have a very limited chance (if any) of moving past the primary.
As a result, it’s no wonder that voting participation by the American people is at such a low percentage compared to Norway or Germany, which were mentioned in the article. As American citizens, we really have little impact on who makes it to the ballot in a presidential election.
Money and the media typically dictate which candidates we get to vote for. And certainly, it’s not only the presidential election, members of the House and Senate are all up for sale.
To minimize this, we should really mobilize around implementing term limits for representatives and senators; so many of our representatives and senators remain in office for far too long. Along the way, the special-interest groups, lobbyists, corporate donors, etc., have infused so much money to support elected officials’ re-election, that doing the right thing for the country and the constituents isn’t even part of the equation.
Carrie Hanley, Sammamish
Comments | More in Election | Topics: elections, term limits
