Dear Editor:
As we approach the coming 2004 Presidential election, it is apparent to even the most obscure individual that campaign contributions, irrespective of whether limitations are imposed or not, will enable the influential candidates to enjoy a much superior advantage over those with little or no favorable connections.In the Presidential primaries of 1960, as a classic example, Hubert Humphrey began with a relatively high rating in the polls but as the race drew to a climax, he was forced to concede to the eventual winner, the beneficiary of surpassing financial resources. This is not to say that John Fitzgerald Kennedy would not have won regardless of his affluent advantage but, nevertheless, it is something we shall never really know.
Many attempts have been made throughout the years to enable every man to pursue the highest office in the land on an even footing but, as long as self-interest groups lobby with purchasable potential candidates, an aspirant for the presidency, with nothing to offer but a solid plan to move the nation to elevated heights, will be met with inevitable defeat.
One of the principal offenders of this inequitable situation is the media which could give a suitable and much-sought balance to the political scene by allowing free time to each candidate. To forestall the possibility of innumerable fringe candidates, with obviously little chance of support apart from family and friends, clogging the networks and thereby creating chaos, perhaps the top six candidates in the polls could be made eligible. If a reasonable number of appearances could be determined beforehand, this would insure that the networks would not be subject to undue financial harm. Similarly, newspapers could follow the same doctrine with advertisements. In this way a poor office seeker with a penetrating vision will be afforded parity with a prosperous one whose only attribute is a kinship with the mint.
If we continue to adhere to the current political philosophy, that is, to allow special-interest groups to impose the will of the minority on the majority, we shall witness the erosion of the will of the common citizen.
It is time for a government of the people, for the people and by the people to begin to practice democracy.
Howard Lawson