Iowa Caucuses: Democracy for Sale

COMMENTARY | The phrase "You get the government you deserve" rang true again in Iowa last night. Before the first Iowan opened his mouth in defense of his candidate, democracy had lost. Why? Because the Iowa Caucuses were not democracy practiced, but democracy bought.

The American electorate is a glutton for political punishment; we consistently reward the actions we swear to hate. It is ironic the Iowa Caucuses were bought like any other two-bit election. Whether you like the format or not, the Iowa Caucuses represent one of the few examples of direct democracy in America. In a country that prides itself in being "for the people," and "by the people, it is interesting that our forefathers didn't trust us enough to pick our own U.S. Senators. Nor did the founders allow us to pick our president outright, the Electoral College being so absurd that Americans actually recall it from history class. Yet, in Iowa, citizens report to a common area and speak on behalf of their candidate. But do they speak on behalf of the best candidate, or just the one with the most money? The facts point to the latter.

It was only three weeks ago that Newt Gingrich was atop the GOP field. It seemed that former Speaker Gingrich had struck a chord with his Republican constituents. They must have seen something; his rise was meteoritic. Then, Iowa was inundated with negative ads aimed at Gingrich. The New York Times reported that over one 10-day stretch, candidates, and "super PACs" spent $600,000 attacking Newt Gingrich.

If the disgust of Americans in regard to our elected officials was any indication, Gingrich should have remained untouched by the ads. Indeed, an AARP poll showed that 76 percent of 18 to 49 year olds, and 77 percent of those 50 and over agreed that discouraging negative ads would improve the campaign process. It was the only question in the poll that was able to overcome the generational divide. Yet, Gingrich wasn't unscathed by the negative ads. In fact, his support plummeted. Gingrich fell from frontrunner status to fourth behind Rick Santorum, who at one point wasn't even polling in the double digits.

This is not intended to be a pity party for New Gingrich. But it was Gingrich's lack of campaign cash that did him in. It wouldn't have mattered if Gingrich were Abraham Lincoln himself: no money, no victory. The man who gained the most by Gingrich falling out of favor was Mitt Romney. The default pick of the Republican Party has kept his spot atop the Republican field by virtue of his money.

According to MSNBC.com, Restore our Future, the Super Pac affiliated with Romney spent $2.8 million on ads in Iowa, and another $1.5 million was spent by the Romney campaign itself. Meanwhile, ABC News reports that Mitt Romney spent the least amount of time actually campaigning in Iowa when compared to his counterparts. Is that the democracy we hold dear?

At one time in this country, wealthy men were able to pay money to avoid the military draft. The practice was popular during the Civil War; welcome to the political equivalent. A man can buy an election without even showing up for the fight. Rick Santorum finished eight votes behind Romney. He has spent less than $200,000 in Iowa, but has crisscrossed the state visiting all 99 counties. But this is my prediction: Even if Santorum had won, it wouldn't have mattered because he doesn't have the money to compete the whole primary season.

Elections are supposed to be the purest element in a democracy. But our elections are for sale. The worst part; we are all accessories to the hijacking of our greatest institution. Again and again we elect those who sling mud, and break their promises. When faced with an alternative, we chastise them for being different. Vote for the best man/woman, America, not the one with the fattest wallet.