Democrats, political pundits, and much of the media have snooped, pried, pecked and nosed around trying to get the goods on Alvin Greene, and then boot him from the South Carolina US senatorial general election ballot. The right question is not who is and who put up Greene. The question is why an Alvin Greene? This shouldn't take any head scratching. Voters aren't dumb. They sniff the horrid stench of the dollar taint that's transformed American elections into a billionaire's derby. They want no part of it and stay home. Or on occasion thumb their nose at the Republican and Democratic Party's and the special interest anointed picks and vote for a political nobody such as Greene. But let's say he is a plant, and GOP dirty trick operatives funneled money to him to run, despite prodigious efforts neither has been proven. But let's just suppose. He still got the votes, lots of them, and he didn't arm them to vote for him. The votes he got cut across all racial lines (no race card here since Greene was unknown and there were no pictures on the ballot).
If South Carolina and national Democrats had been smart instead of screeching for federal investigations, ranting about a GOP plant, and threatening to void the election, they could have spun Greene from a political laughingstock, or rather the Democrat's political laughingstock, to a Don King like parody of Only in the Democratic Party could a nonentity emerge as a real people's choice. This would require imagination. And that's nowhere to be found in the tight-knit, set in stone, money and influence controlled elections. Greene is a total foreign concept to the way politics is done.
This past election hundreds of incumbents for state, local and even congressional offices ran literally against themselves. They had no opponents. Barely two out of ten eligible voters bothered going to the polls. Tens of millions more eligible voters have thrown in the towel on voting. The money taint is solely to blame. The Public Interest Research Group looked at election outcomes for incumbent, challenger, and open seat candidates for U.S. House from 1992-2006. Non-incumbent candidates needed a minimum of $700,000 to $1 million to be competitive. Less than one percent of them that failed to hit the minimum money mark won and only five percent of the underfinanced candidates won in open seat elections. Overall, 75 % of non-incumbents raised less, and in most cases, far less, than the threshold $700,000. All lost. Money in all cases made the crucial difference, not just in who wound up in the electoral win column, but who even chose to run. According to Federal Elections Commission data, major party congressional candidates who raised the most money won 90% of their primary races in 2002. Winning candidates out-raised their opponents by a margin of more than 4-to-1, with the winners raising an average of $464,000 and losers raising $99,000. The numbers haven't changed in the past decade.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).