Buying the election

Left-wing socialists across the country have been opining that Republicans did so badly in the election because conservatism is a dying, obsolete philosophy that Americans are beginning to abandon. Well, they are wrong. I know the real reason why conservatives did so badly on November 4th - because liberals bought the election.

Take Barack Obama, for example. He spent $573 million, while John McCain, who accepted public financing, spent only $293 million. It is simply not right that one candidate can have a half-hour long infomercial on all the major networks and the other candidate cannot.

Another great example of liberals buying the election is Question 1 - the initiative to repeal the Massachusetts income tax. It sickens my heart that Question 1 was defeated 70% to 30%. There would have been no drawbacks to eliminating the state income tax and a huge benefit, namely people getting to keep their money! However, because opponents of Question 1 raised $4.5 million and supporters raised only $431,000, the government theives were able to run deceptive TV ads to brainwash the people of Massachusetts into making the irrational, immoral choice.

It is sad that people are so easily influenced by propaganda instead of thinking for themselves. The amount of money a candidate or group has should not affect their chances of winning an election. I believe that campaign spending limits need to be implemented. I don't believe in public financing because the government shouldn't spend money on anything but the military, the justice system, and roads, but I also don't think campaigns should be able to spend as much as they want. Financial arms races are a waste of money, time, and energy and are collectively self-defeating. To ensure fair elections in which people have a chance to make their own decisions instead of being brainwashed, the government needs to limit the amount of money campaigns are allowed to spend.

Sources for stats:
Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org)
SouthCoastToday.com