Money should be in politics

Oh yes.Just to be clear about what money is, not that you don't already know: 1. any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money, and demand deposits. Also, by "Money in politics" I mean money influencing politicians and people. This does include PACs and Super PACs. This does not incude government spending for things like healthcare.(All of this is just to be clear.)NO, POLITICS SHOULD NOT BE INFLUENCED BY MONEY. CAMPAIGNS WITH A LOT OF MONEY ARE MORE OFTEN THAN NOT MORE INFLUENTIAL THAN OTHER CAMPAIGNSLet's take a look at Mitt Romney's campaign for President right now. He's outspending his competition overall 15:1. That's a lot of money. He spent over 3.4 million advertising just in Alabama and Mississippi.[1] He's outspending his competition 50:1 on advertising in certain states. Currently, in Wisconsin (where I'm from), I'm seeing all these commercials from Romney about the upcoming primary, and they are all character attacks on Santorum. Hell, I'm even seeing political ads on YouTube for the upcoming primary. In theory, seeing this over and over eventually is going to convince people to vote for Romney. Honestly, after seeing a lot of these commercials, I don't want to vote Santorum. But also after realizing the amount of money that went into convincing me to not vote for Santorum, I don't want to vote Romney. Now, not all of this money is for TV Ads. They are also for campaign signs and rallies. It seems like when Romney or Santorum or any other candidate is campaigning, they have these huge rallies for their supporters to evangelize even more people to their campaign.Here's a chart detailing the spending of all the candidates on a day-to-day basis: http://www.npr.org...Ron Paul 2012.MOST OF THE MONEY GIVEN TO INFLUENCE POLITICS IS BY THE RICHMost of the money that is given to SuperPACs is by the rich, who support these candidates so that they can gain tax cuts and other forms of beneits later on. I'm not pulling this out of nowhere, the Federal Election Commission reported these donors for over 1 million dollars: http://www.npr.org...That, my friend, is huge. Sheldon and Miriam Adelson plan to spend 100 million dollars total on the Gingrich superPAC? They even said "I'm against very wealthy people attempting to [influence] or influencing elections. But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it." What about other Americans? "When it came to small donors — those who gave $200 or less — the powerful Romney fundraising machine collected less than Santorum, or even Gingrich." [1]That means that despite people donating small amounts of money, meaning actual supporters who aren't just swing voters, Romney's SuperPAC and his campaign are making more money than Santorum or Gingrich combined. And he's winning the campaign because of these ads, because at some point the people watching these ads realize how terrible the candidate being attacked is.MONEY IN POLITICS IS ESSENTIALLY BUYING THE VOTEThe straw poll election is a prime example of this: When prompted, candidates will win by spending any amount of money necessary. The straw poll was said to be a forshadowing of the caucus, that whoever won the straw poll was most likely to win the nomination. So all the candidates went out and spent their hearts out buying tents, food, and merchandise to give to those who were coming to the straw poll. Since voting in the straw poll was 30 dollars, candidates handed away votes to those who would vote for them in the straw poll. Michelle Bachman spent 39,000 dollars alone on votes, and God knows how much on her tent, which had numerous famous rock bands and food. The election is slightly different. Rather than literally buying the vote, they go out and spend money to gain influence over the voters. They spend the maximum amount of money possible in order to get those votes. MONEY INFLUENCES THE VOTE FOR LEGISLATION BY CONGRESSPERSONS, MAKING IT SO THAT THE PEOPLE ARE NOT REPRESENTED BUT RATHER INTEREST GROUPS AREIn many cases, Congresspersons vote for legislation that large donors for their reelection campaign support. By this, I essentially mean lobbying. Lobbying remains a dominant force in today's politics. Congresspersons who received support from large companies in their reelection campain must support legislation that helps these companies in order to keep the support of these large donors. If Congresspersons feel obligated to vote for legislation that supports certain large donors but does not represent their constituents because they need the money in order to gain influence to be reelected, then that is morally objectional. Not only is it morally objectional, but it goes against the point of Republican government. America needs clear representation, not by special interest groups but by what the American people actually want.Vote con.1. http://www.npr.org...