Donation redirect: Criticisms of big money influence worth examining, but on both sides

One of the most irritating things about political commercials -- aside from the fact that they appear everywhere ad nauseam -- is that they are often simply one-sided spin.

So, in case you have heard the commercial critiquing the Koch brothers and their "billionaire bucks" backing Senate candidate Republican Thom Tillis, put up your "spin" antennae.

The amusing thing about either of the major political parties critiquing the other for accepting large donations from influential rich donors is that it is a standoff.

Both sides accept money from power players -- and probably make some policy decisions based on that influence.

And in the Democrats' case, their money comes from one major corporate mogul -- George Soros, who is at best a controversial figure with pronounced views and international interests.

How is that for undue influence?

Americans who have the money to be able to contribute to advance political causes should be able to do so. It is a free country -- and in the final analysis, both sides benefit from just such investment, with the same questionable results.

But in the game of politics, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

For the Senate Majority PAC (read Democrats interested in keeping their majority in the U.S. Senate) to point fingers at anyone for taking money from large, influential donors is nothing but pure hypocrisy.

And someone should call them out.

Voters who think only one party is influenced by big money-players are deluding themselves. If you have any doubt, pay attention to how much it costs to go to any of their star-studded benefits -- and who is among the Hollywood glitterati who donate to political campaigns or who offer their images up for endorsements.

Do you think Hollywood actors should have any more influence over who gets into office than the everyday Joe?

So as the campaign season begins, pay attention to who is running the show and take all commercials, endorsements and political stands with a grain of salt.

Bottom line is, no matter where the money comes from, the final say still remains at the ballot box -- where it should be.

If we can keep people from cheating there, too.

Published in Editorials on April 3, 2014 10:44 AM