Political Plutocracy in Elk Grove - Alea iacta est

Suetonius to Julius Caesar on January 10, 49 BC as he led his army across the River Rubicon in Northern Italy "Alea iacta est."

On a recent edition of Billy Moyers & Company, journalists Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland discussed the growing plutocracy in America. As is typical after watching Moyers, it got us thinking about plutocracy in America, not to mention in our own backyard.

Just for clarification purposes, a plutocracy is defined as:

The rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy. 2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules. 3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

While some will argue that the United States is not plutocratic, regardless of your political persuasion, all you have to do for evidence is have turned on your local TV station or listened to a local terrestrial radio station to hear the barrage of paid political advertising. Who is funding these commercials?

Is it the 47 percent derisively referenced by Mitt Romney? Or is it the top one percent in this nation who control a disproportionate share of our nations wealth? Is it your next door neighbor or some billionaire brothers?

If you are a registered voter when going through your mail over the last few weeks you have undoubtedly received numerous mailers for Congressman Dan Lungren or his challenger, Dr. Ami Bera. Just who funds these mailers and what are their political motivations?

Likewise, registered voters in Elk Grove have received numerous mailers for Elk Grove Council Member Gary Davis. Unlike his other five opponents, as of the last campaign financing statement, Davis has amassed an overwhelming financial advantage.

With this significant advantage, Davis can effectively overrun voters with his milquetoast message. His opponents combined have less than half of the funding and simply cannot reach voters with their message the way Davis can.

This is not to say Davis is a bad guy. We are confident he is a good family man and we know for certain he loves Elk Grove.

But does this make him the best candidate in the field or is he the presumed front-runner simply because of his overwhelming financial advantage?

If you consider the fact that it now takes at least $100,000 to mount a serious run for the city council, can anyone but an incumbent or an extremely wealthy person have a chance to raise the money needed to face an incumbent and have any chance of winning? Is it a coincidence that Council Members Jim Cooper and Steve Detrick are unopposed on this November's ballot?

To raise the money needed to run an Elk Grove city council campaign, you need lots of deep-pocketed donors who will fork over the cash to finance a run. Will these big time donors be giving away their money out of civic pride or are they looking for a quid pro quo?

If you really believe the former, give us a call and we will be glad to sell you the deed to the Tower Bridge for $100.

Obviously pols like Davis have and will argue they are not personally wealthy and by default they personally are not plutocrats. Perhaps they are not, but what about their donors?

Would Davis be so supportive of the city's much desired expansion under the guise of attracting jobs if he was receiving major donations from say the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters or some other environmental group? If they funded Davis to the degree the various residential real estate developers and building trade unions are, do you think he might take a different position?

We maintain that over our city's brief 12 year history, Elk Grove has quickly developed into a plutocracy with big monied donors pulling the strings of their puppets. Quite simply if you want something done, or not done, simply fund politicians who will gladly carry your water.

So as we wind down towards the first direct election of our mayor, we hope voters consider the effect the results of this election will have on the growing plutocracy in Elk Grove.

Alea iacta est - The die has been cast. Or has it?