1hundredsixty8

The last few weeks have seen Hillary Clinton and a bevy of Republicans announce their intentions to run for President in 2016. The media in all forms has begun its orgy of poll result fornication and fetishistic fascination with strange details about the hopefuls ("Hillary ate at Chipolte?"). There is even occasional coverage of the candidates' positions on various issues, but, especially on the Republican side, these positions are distorted by the need to appeal to the very conservative base in the primaries. Recall that, during the last Presidential primary season, moderate Mitt Romney labeled himself a "severe conservative." I cannot help but think of the song "Time Warp" from The Rocky Horror Picture Show: "It's just a step to the right."

What has really struck me in scoping various news sites and blogs is the amount of media space devoted to the candidates' fundraising. While there has been some coverage of the grousing in certain corners about Marco Rubio's waffling on immigration reform, more media attention is paid to his success in raising money quickly. Jeb Bush, not yet an official candidate, has still made news by energetically raising money from Washington insiders. Hillary Clinton- leading in the polls as this nascent stage- has been enduring ongoing flak about donations made to the Clinton Foundation by various foreign entities. Candidates announce their fundraising plans before issuing statements on policy.

In this post-Citizen United political environment, it does appear to be all about the money.The myopia of the Supreme Court manifested in that decision is perfectly summarized in Justice Anthony Kennedy's statement" “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Seriously? Why, then, are donors willing to fork over billions to get their gal or guy elected?