On this election eve, there’s much to ponder, about what we’ve heard from candidates, and what we haven’t.
Tomorrow voters will decide who will end up in November running for the first House of Representatives seat in Rhode Island.
The Democratic race, with 11 candidates, has gained the most attention, and has distinguished itself by most candidates agreeing on all the important issues. It’s been more a battle of endorsements, claims of irregularities in gathering signatures, and accusations about fundraising.
All say their backgrounds make them best suited for the seat – whether because of their gender, or professional background, or their political experience or lack thereof.
Perhaps this is more a battle of ideology, of who might be more progressive, evidenced by those who have campaigned in Rhode Island (Senator Bernie Sanders among them) on behalf of certain candidates.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I anticipate a lackluster turnout at best.
What’s been missing from this election and nearly every other, has been a robust debate over the critical need for financial reform.
Sure, candidates talk about term limits, but that’s not such an easy call. Term limits, sometimes, leave the lobbyists and career government employees with considerable power, because they possess that institutional knowledge. And, after all, we do have term limits, we just call them elections. A far more complex discussion.
But finance reform is not. It’s easy, through sites like OpenSecrets, to learn whose campaigns are being enriched by what industries. Gun control, drug costs, energy, and more are policies that too often are driven by political contributions and not merit.
I would personally be moved by those candidates – statewide and national – that make financial reform, and ethics among the most important issues that they would address once in office.
But for now, elections are won by those who have the greatest financial resources, and not necessarily, the most compelling ideas.
