Election spending reforms should be considered

Editor:

Abe Lincoln and Harry Truman wouldn’t stand a chance. Coming from humble backgrounds, and lacking the billions in funding provided today by billionaires and huge corporations, they would stand little chance of being elected. Between 2004 and 2024, spending by the 100 wealthiest Americans went from $46 million to $11 billion. About one in every $13 spent in the last national election came from the country’s 100 richest billionaires. (Source: “The Week” magazine.)

We are not so naive as to believe money hasn’t played a role in elections in the past. Indeed, during the “Gilded Age” following the Civil War, any number of Senate seats were purchased by big monopolists, including a few here in Colorado. Perhaps it is time to seriously consider a reform in election spending. Perhaps even funding for all balloted candidates, perhaps even funding by the government might be considered, with the government funding election advertising. The government already spends much on frivolous items.

Robert J. Koepsel

Gunnison