The candidates who receive the huge contributions use the money to their advantage to flood the media with ads and to hire PR to manage their media coverage. The opponent has little chance of winning against them. They are obscure figures in the election in comparison. What is desired by most voters is contribution limits and partial public financing of election campaigns.

Twice Washington State voters rejected closing our Liquor stores and allowing the sale of hard liquor in grocery stores. Then Costco spent around $17 million to get the law passed, and it was because of the huge ad campaign that was run with the money. Another case, Seattle voters rejected tearing down the Hwy 99 Alaskan Way Viaduct twice, but the real estate developers wanted the land it sits on. Seattleites are very nostalgic about the Alaskan Way Viaduct, and we love it. The people who ride along it have a beautiful view of the Puget Sound. But the real estate developers wanted the real estate it sits on, which belongs to the City of Seattle. There was no urgency in closing it and tearing it down. It was damaged in the 2001 earthquake and repaired, and retrofitting it would not have cost nearly as much as building an underground tunnel (which is what would have had to be done if it was torn down). The tunnel fanatics could have even still build their tunnel on their own dime and not the taxpayers’, if they had wanted to even if we did not tear down the Viaduct. The ultra-rich parties who favored the tearing down of the Viaduct spent huge amount of money, and their lawyers appealed to the state legislature to get them to order it — though it is in downtown Seattle and it does no harm to anyone and the Seattleites want it in their city. It was allowed over the vast majority of the Seattleites’ wishes — because it is part of a national highway. This resulted in the taxpayers having to spend billions to finance a tunnel that Seattle did not want, and the tearing down of what Seattleites consider a Historic Heritage Site and very valuable and loved viaduct in Seattle. If we had both the Viaduct and a tunnel, traffic might moved faster through downtown Seattle. However, even if it didn’t, people would have a choice between driving through a tunnel or over a viaduct.

I could go on, but big money talks. The whole principle behind limiting campaign contributions is that there should be a democratic process in our elections based upon the weight of one voter equaling another. When the opponents in a campaign have equal access to the media, as much as is possible, and in debates, then the people can get informed about all of them and make a wise decision. But when the playing field is not level, and the candidate who gets huge amounts of cash from the ultra-rich donors, then that candidate has a huge advantage that cannot be overcome, in most cases. In effect, the ultra-rich have bought the outcome of the election, and the candidate they have funded. Candidates rely on the ultra-rich donors to get elected and reelected, not the people. They therefore are concerned with representing the interests of the donors, not their constituency. In this way, our democratic portion of our democratic republic has been undermined in contradiction to the content and intent of our constitution. This subject has been covered very well in the media and in political literature.