Reply #30: This raises serious questions about money in politics. [View All]

[ChadwickHenryWard]

I don't know about the rest of the posters on this board, but I don't have $38,500 to give to the candidate of my choice. In fact, right now I don't have any money I can spend on influencing politics. While my concerns are just as valid as any attendee of a $10,000 a plate fundraiser, I can't buy access to decision-makers like some of the exceptionally wealthy individuals listed here. All I have is my voice in public fora like the Internet, which, you will note, doesn't account for much.

Don't get me wrong: the cause that Gaga is promoting is a very important one. She is using the exceptional wealth and fame with which she has been blessed to promote the well-being of marginalized people in American society. This is probably one of the most effective ways that she can promote her cause. To be honest, I think Gaga is totally blameless in doing what she did, even if it contributes to the pernicious influence of money on our politics. But here's the problem: the cause itself only benefits because a wealthy and influential individual has taken it up. I could have a concern that is just as important as anti-gay bullying. I just don't have the money and influence necessary to promote my issues. And of course, many of the people that have money and influence (Koch brothers, e.g.) promote some very bad ideas. The issue doesn't stand on its own merit - it only fares as well as the money and fame of it's advocates can manage.