We have to admit, some of our staff is a bit tired this morning, since the regular work they do forced them to stay up late last night, watching the sad, repetitive coverage of the political horse race known as the Iowa Caucuses.
While we highly value fair and legitimate voting, and we are generally in favor of the concept of caucusing, we also make no bones about how tainted by money the current political system is in America - even when the outcome is nearly certain. As we've stated multiple times, and as many others have also repeated, when it comes to federal offices - including that of President - 94% of the time, the candidate who wins is the one with more money.
Nowhere have the facts and figures on how money can affect campaigning been displayed more clearly than in the Iowa Caucuses, which concluded last night.
Even though the importance of winning a caucus, like that in Iowa, is disputed by many on all sides in the political realm, primary contests are generally looked at as potentially solid predictors of an eventual winner. In the poll of polls, run by FiveThirtyEight.com, Mitt Romney looks to be a 93% or better favorite to win the New Hampshire primary.
As we already said this year, the GOP's eventual nominee WILL be Romney.
Still, knowing how far ahead former Gov. Romney is in New Hampshire didn't stop the campaigns from spending more money than any of us has ever seen spent in politics in Iowa.
According to a report by NBC News, in the 2012 Presidential campaign so far, the slew of campaigns, political action committees, and SuperPACs spent more than $16 million in political advertising in Iowa this past year. That includes both Republican and Democratically aligned groups - and it's just the tip of the money iceberg.
Even if you "take the under" - the lower amount of $12.5 million in campaign spending, quoted by the New York Times - the amount of money flowing through the American political system, at the beginning of the 2012 campaigns is mind-boggling.
Thanks to online tools like OpenSecrets.org, we're highly aware of how much each campaign, at multiple levels of government, is costing these days. We're also aware that in the Presidential race, President Obama has a significant fundraising advantage over any and all Republican challengers.
Much as we noted in our first commentary for 2012, it's not just the amount of money these candidates have to spend that worries us - it's where the money comes from.
For Mr. Romney, an astounding ten percent or more of his campaign contributions have come from the richest of the rich - not just multi-millionaires, but billionaires and multi-billionares in his quest for the presidency.
Most American politicians haven't even begun their campaigns for Congress yet - campaigns that are certain to mirror the numbers that were spent in Iowa.
In a post-Citizens United world, where there are few real restrictions on campaign spending, it's more obvious than ever who the two groups are in modern American society.
There are those who are leading our politicians around, like a horse with a carrot on a stick.
Then there are the rest of us, who have become little more than political janitors, cleaning up after them.
