Tight money reveals the underpinnings of the body politic.

And like tight clothing, it reveals whatever basic flaws might otherwise be concealed. One of those democratic deformities bulged out at the Lincoln City Council meeting Monday last.

John Camp proposed cutting another quarter of a million dollars out of the Lincoln Fire Department Budget, his favorite departmental carcass to gnaw on, and Dan Marvin and Jonathan Cook opined that Camp had a vendetta against the fire department.

Camp suggested that perhaps Marvin and Cook were in the pocketbook of the fire department union, because of campaign contributions, while Marvin suggested Camp's ire at the fire department was related to his campaign contributions from the Lincoln Independent Business Association, especially LIBA president Coby Mach, who was involved in a private ambulance service in Lincoln.

Whether or not ambulance service should be public or private is fodder for another day. The flaw revealed in all its glory at Monday's City Council meeting is how we fund the process for electing our public servants. More specifically, how we don't fund the process for electing our public servants. Which leads to campaign contributions. Which leads to at least the appearance of politicians bought and paid for.

This seems to be the process we, the people, want. In the free for all of our free market, free enterprise system, we seem loathe to squeeze out a few dollars each to fund campaigns. And campaigners seem loathe to give up the millions involved in getting elected, so they raise funds continuously, even while in office, in preparation for the next campaign. Soft money, hard money, donations, fund-raising dinners, auctions, fables, foibles and follies abound.

Maybe in a country where what we seem to value above all else unfettered buying and selling, our politics reflects our principles. After all, if a person makes it to billionaire status, (millionaires don't really count any more), perhaps they deserve to influence public policy more than the rest of us. We seem to believe that…on both a corporate and personal level.

Perhaps politicians are above all that. Perhaps they don't really notice who gives ten dollars and who gives ten thousand dollars. Perhaps. But something in me tells me that if I gave ten dollars to the campaign of Mr. Camp or Mr. Marvin, and you gave ten thousand, either one of them would be more inclined to pick up the phone if it was you calling rather than me. And they might, just might be more inclined to listen to what you have to say.

And if I was in the same position, like it or not, I would probably respond the same way. Money buys access. You can spin it however you want, but that's the unremarkable truth about our system of electing public servants.

This experiment in democracy is not perfect, and it is yet young. But as the divide between them that has and them than don't widens, it will be more and more important to tweak this flaw in our system. Because it is neither a beauty mark nor a benign tumor. It's cancer and it will kill us.

Democracies in other parts of the world have instituted real caps on campaign funding and spending, and some provide public financing for campaigns, so there is some real attempt to level the playing field for those wanting to participate in what was at least in part proposed as participatory government.

The wealthy have always had access, and always will. And they will fight any change that might wrest some of that power and control away. Who wouldn't? But just because they are wealthy, by dint of birth or through business acumen or artistic talent does not mean they necessarily know what's best for me. Or you.

But we have given them control over our lives, our laws, our property, our taxes.

We're not going to eliminate the influence of money in politics. But to enshrine it as policy is foolish. It's past time to look at some form of public financing for political elections, some real limits on campaign contributions, and even some limits on political advertising.

There are actually democracies out there where political ads are outlawed in the three months prior to an election…the people are allowed to digest their information and make some decision without the constant pounding of last minute ads and mud-slinging.
There are democracies out there where even presidential campaigns last only a few months, rather than the two years of relentless swill we're treated to here in the U.S.A.

Aren't you really tired of campaign ads already, and the election isn't until next year? Don't you think that with some real information, you could make up you mind about who you want for president in, say, a couple of months?

We can change the system you know. It's our system.