Do you think money has anything to do with how ethical a political candidate is?
If it wasn`t always rich people with hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on advertising, but instead a working-class person with no money running for office, would things work better? Or would it make any difference at all?
To be a bit biased here In the congress election last month or so, the republican Fergueson in our state probly used thousands of dollars to hire people to make pictures of chicken nuggets and icecream on the pamflets they give you in the mail. They also has clever catch phrases like "Lisa Stender is a spender." and "Shes a double dipping pension padder." which all bashed the Democrat Lisa Stender, who sent out honest stuff with actual facts and reasons to vote for her. Lisa Stender lost and that should say alot.
No, it just reflects the state of the society. Politicians are quite often voted on, and it just so happens that money is necessary to get messages out, spread the name, etc.
And in general, poor working class person with no money would not make better public servants, probably the opposite. The ability to make money must somehow be related to other life skills.
Also, if the concern is corruption, I think it is possible (not completely, 100% true with cited factual proof, sorry) that very poor office holders might be more tempted by bribes. Because face it, most poor people did not choose their situation because they are truly honest and good-willed in regards to the society and believe that money is evil...
I don't know. I can see how it is argued that the ones with the money are not always ethical, but who assumes that relative poverty implies ethics? Am I necessarily more ethical than a richer person? Money tends to make the candidates more removed from actual feelings of society, but I don't think it really decides ethics.