Remember the old story about how to tell an optimist from a pessimist?

Two youngsters are shut up in separate rooms. One full of toys and the other’s contained only a huge pile of manure. Later when checked, the boy in the room full of toys was sitting in a corner crying. Why? Because he was afraid someone was going to come and take all these things away from him. As they walked down the hall to the other room, they heard hoots of joy and laughter emanating from it.

They opened the door to find the second child digging around in the manure. “What are you doing,” one asked. “Oh boy,” the child shouted, “with all this horse shit there’s bound to be a pony in here some place”! Hum. Point made re optimist vs. pessimist.

What about a “realist”? For that matter, what is a realist?

Best I can come up with is that a realist sees the world as it is (Oh dear), without excessive optimism or pessimism. He/she bases judgement on facts, evidence, and probabilities, accepts both positive and negative possibilities and prepares accordingly, maintaining a pragmatic and balanced mindset, often saying, “it could go either way.” Hum. Balance yeah, but just how helpful is that in so many life situations? I mean, maybe yes, maybe no? Big help!

Now let’s apply this somewhat ambiguous thinking to a real-world situation, the debate over the value or harm of an increasing amount of money being injected into politics, especially electoral politics. To do so, let’s first bring this subject up to date (It’s increasingly considered a big deal by Americans, nationwide. See below):

The debate over money in U.S. politics has deep historical roots, but it became a major public issue starting in the late 19th century. Here’s how it evolved:

Early History
• 18th century: Even before modern campaigns, money played a role—George Washington famously spent funds on rum punch to win votes.
• 1820s–1860s: Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln used patronage systems to fund campaigns, exchanging jobs and contracts for political support.

Gilded Age (1870s–1890s)

• Campaign finance became more controversial as corporations began funding candidates. Reformers criticized the influence of big business, especially after the 1896 election when Standard Oil backed William McKinley.

Early Regulation
• 1907: The Tillman Act banned corporate contributions to federal campaigns—the first major campaign finance law.
• 1971: The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) introduced spending limits and disclosure rules.
• 1976: Buckley v. Valeo ruled that spending money on campaigns is a form of free speech, igniting modern debates about money’s role in democracy.

Citizens United Era
• 2010: Citizens United v. FEC allowed unlimited independent political spending by corporations and unions, leading to the rise of Super PACs and “dark money”.
• 2025: A Pew poll found that money in politics is now viewed as the #1 problem by Americans—more than any other issue.

So while money has always been part of politics, the debate over its influence really intensified with the rise of corporate donations, legal challenges, and the explosion (Boom!) of campaign spending in the 21st century.

There you have it. This historical timeline appears to go in one clear direction with infrequent legislative speed bumps placed at least to slow down and/or control it, while the monied interests have looked to the courts to counter such efforts. But what about the “debate over its influence”? Why a debate about it at all? A debate implies two sides to an issue. If the Supreme Court declares it legal, isn’t that the end of it?

Well...not really. It may go on (legally) but as the above Pew poll found, money in politics is viewed as the #1 problem by Americans. In many minds of we the people, we think it’s a problem. The real issue is not whether its legal or not, but whether its right or wrong to allow such an influence in the democratic structure of “one man, one vote.”

“Phooey,” says one side of the debate; money represents free speech, protected under our Constitution. “Baloney,” shouts the other. Unchecked money results in ”Dependence Corruption” which results in politicians becoming dependent on large donors and special interests to fund their campaigns, distorting their priorities such that elected officials serve funders more than constituents. And then there is the purported recent case where one individual openly bragged about spending “millions” in one state (where he doesn’t even reside), to help get a certain candidate running for office elected. It was presumably legal, but was it right? Did it help (or hinder) the American democratic expectations?

Just where do you stand in this debate? If you don’t believe the money-in-politics problem (plutocracy) exists, you’re excused from considering this issue any further (lucky you!). If, however, you agree this problem exists you may be optimistic or pessimistic – your choice – no matter which side of the debate you find yourself. As pointed out above, these positions are largely based on opinion and experience. You might describe them as “wishful thinking.“ But, how about our realist? Is he/she of any help in looking at the problem? Maybe. Recall, as a bystander who sees the world as it is, our realist bases his/her judgement on facts, evidence, and probabilities, accepts both negative and positive possibilities and judges accordingly. So...let’s hear his side of the story:

FACTS: At least per Pew, Americans believe money in politics is the number one problem today (2025).

While legislating to control it, monied (plutocratic) interests have successfully used the legal system to repeatedly thwart such efforts since the start of the 20th century (see above history).

Since 2000, the share of wealth of the top 1% of American households has increased 36% from 22.8% to 30%, while the bottom 50% of households’ share of the pot is static at approximately 2.4%. Hum. I thought a rising tide lifted all boats. Apparently not.

The five largest individual donors identified each gave $100 million, or more, to the aligned political causes of candidates in 2024, with one coughing up almost $300 million. Guess who?

EVIDENCE: He who spends the most money in an election most often wins. A study from 2000 through 2016 for US House seats showed more than 90% of candidates who spent the most money won. There was one exception: in 2010 the percentage “plummeted “to just 86%!

The cost to elect a President of these United States in 2000 approximated $583 million. In 2024 (between both Parties), overall election campaign spending reached a record high of $15.9 billion, with the presidential campaign alone costing $5.5 billion!

PROBABILITIES: Absent a change in broad legal interpretation of (a) Corporations as ”people” and (b) the precedent that money is a form of free speech, protected by the Constitution, the opportunity for money to significantly influence (if not outright trump) the one man one vote historical political understanding in America’s election campaigns and government’s rules & regulations will continue under the plutocracy’s domination. The well off will become even better off; the middle class further squeezed and the less well off (the lowest 50% of Americans) struggle to make it on their single digit share of the pie. To wit, income inequalities will “probably” become even more pronounced. Damn!

There is clearly an argument for, as well as a place for, money in our democratic political system. But from the “facts and evidence” it could unquestionably use a reset. If on the other hand our historical democratic political system proves unsustainable, this issue of money in politics is probably moot. Hummmm.

Of course, this is only one realist’s conclusion based upon a brief (and incomplete) review of history, a few current facts, and a bit of recent experience . . . so far. Hum.