Are U.S. Citizens being Represented in Government?

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

It seems to me that our nation has deviated some distance from this vision of our founders. Yet even with so great a deviation, I would not advocate the overthrow of the United States government as did our founders. I do, however, advocate a few changes that might put our government back on the track originally envisioned by them.
Do any of these things disturb you?
-High taxes
-Failure to protect our national borders
-Political Payoffs
-Legislative Favoritism
-Jobs going to other countries
-Poor education system
-Dependence on foreign oil
-High cost of medicine
-Stupid people getting elected to office
-Few opportunities for the little guy
-Corruption in government
-High crime rate
-Too much political influence from large organizations
-Extreme international trade imbalance
-One World government
-Discrimination
-Too much foreign influence in our government

These issues all have something in common. They are all driven by the way our politicians pay for their election campaigns.

Consider these things –
1. Often the first priority for an elected official is to remain in office.
2. Some elected officials will do anything to stay in office – anything!
3. To win an election, a candidate needs the votes of the general populace – the common voter.
4. The better financed candidate will almost always win an election.
5. Money from a few ‘deep pockets’ (campaign finance sources) is an enormous help to getting elected.
6. An elected official owes allegiance to both voters and finance sources
7. The needs of common voters and finance sources rarely coincide.
8. When an issue arises (and there are many) where an elected official must make a choice between representing common voters and representing campaign finance sources, representation of the money sources will usually win (see point 4).
9. Who can become an elected representative is controlled by finance sources.
10. Therefore all citizens are not equally represented in government.

Although these issues are not likely to change on their own, one thing could be changed that would make our government far more responsive to the needs of the people. Suppose an elected official never had to choose between campaign finance sources and common voters. That would be the case if voters and campaign finance sources were the same. It is possible to make all citizens equally influential by regulating the source of campaign money. If money for political campaigns came only from registered voters, then the elected officials would owe their allegiance to them and no one else.

Wealth cannot not make anyone intelligent or wise yet we expect our leaders to have those qualities. Sometimes it appears that even a simple majority of our elected leaders have neither. Representation and leadership must be based not wealth, but on ability, desire and commitment. Ability, desire and commitment are rare enough in the human condition without restricting the pool of potential candidates to the relatively few numbers that make up the wealthy class in our nation. True, sometimes elected leaders arise out of the non-wealthy classes, but almost always it is because they have attracted the favor of a moneyed resource and so it is really the moneyed resource (the wealthy) that gets represented.

If registered voters were the only source of campaign money, then the very wealthy voters would direct political campaigns and the advantage of such a change would be lost. Additional changes must be made. The amount of each individual’s contribution to any campaign must also be restricted to an amount an average voter could manage. Perhaps an appropriate limit would be one half the annual median income of registered voters. While such changes make great steps toward a nation governed by its people, they would not significantly change the potential for the wealthy class to rule. Another step must be taken. The candidates for elected office themselves must be restricted in the amounts they could personally contribute to their own political campaign. Such restrictions would remove many of the issues of money from a political campaign.

What is suggested here would mean a government of the people, by the people and for the people to an extent never seen before in the recorded history of mankind.

It is recognized that deep pocketed money sources will continue to influence elected officials even under the campaign finance reform proposed here. Additional legal spackling would likely be necessary to minimize such activities.

There is a danger with broad representation
Each citizen must live freely and have the opportunity to live a successful life in whatever legitimate way he or she can. Such freedom and equal opportunity is possible under a capitalistic economic system. Socialism, on the other hand, can be defined as an economic structure under which all citizens are equal. It denies individuals the freedom to excel or be different in any way. Everyone must be subjected to the same life to the extent that even their opinions and beliefs must be identical. Such a system is horribly unnatural and un–human. Only under capitalism governed by the common people is it possible to truly live out the concept of "from each according to his abilities – to each according to his needs."

Why bring up the concepts of capitalism and socialism in this discussion? It is common in our current system for political candidates to make grand promises to voters in the hopes of gaining support. One of the most common of these grand promises is to give the voters something for nothing. This usually takes the form of promising to lower taxes and increase government entitlements. Of course the taxes are never lowered, but the entitlements are always increased. This represents nothing more than a direct march into socialism.

The temptation to make such promises to voters would not be less under the legal changes so far presented. In fact, the pressure to do so might be greater. Rules, regulations and laws must be changed or enacted that ensure a capitalistic economy. Unfortunately, capitalism can be just as cruel and un-human as socialism unless economic and regulatory pressures strongly favor small and very small businesses.