But why couldn't they just get support from the folks that support other policies and legislation? Those guys exist, too. And I agree that the folks that contribute to campaigns aren't doing it for altruistic reasons, they are doing it because they support the positions of that candidate, not because they own them.
Hey, you and I can contribute a total of $2,700 to any federal candidate per election. Which one of our legislators is being bought by my $2700? The National Party can give $5000, ditto PACs.
Citizens United and SpeechNow vs. FERC allowed groups and individuals to expend funds "independent" of political campaigns.
Are these the funds that are "buying" federal officeholders?
Why shouldn't a senator from Iowa support ethanol subsides? Is he or she "bought" if they do, or are they just going to bat for their own electorate?
I do not dispute that money impacts politics, it does. But it also allows for the dissimnation of information to a voting public that is all too often unable or unwilling to vote in an informed and intelligent fashion.
Oregon has two liberal to very liberal US Senators (caveat: I know them both, from the other side of the aisle. One has been into my classroom and spoken to my seniors) Do they represent liberal interests because they are bought or are they elected in a liberal to very liberal state because they share the political leanings of most of the voting population?
I would prefer you blame the voter rather than vast right-left wing conspiracies.
Moe