<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"The story that's already generating a lot of chatter in Washington is this one: \"House and Senate shatter fundraising records for midterm election and may exceed $2 billion.\" And it's a stunning story, full of numbers that one can't quite wrap one's head around: \"As of last week, House and Senate campaigns reported taking in more than $1.5 billion, exceeding the total collected by congressional candidates in 2006 and in 2008.\" And: \"That's the equivalent of about $4 million for every congressional seat up for grabs this year.\"\n\nPundits will likely grab onto the story's revelation that -- contrary to the narrative pushed by the White House -- most of the money going into the midterms does not come from \"outside groups.\" (They're on track to contribute \"only\" $400 million.)\n\nSo money pouring into campaigns is only partly due to the Citizens United decision undoing McCain-Feingold spending regulations; this election, at least, is seeing an unprecedented combination of high voter interest, deep dissatisfaction with the economy, a media eager to drum up conflict, and an incredibly competitive district-by-district map.\n\nThat's the process side of the story, and nerds like me find it so fascinating that sometimes we forget there's a point to elections beyond simply winning them. What's more, as an electorate, we tend to think as much about non-\"kitchen table\" issues about as far we could throw a kitchen table. Politicians address such complicated, society-level issues as crime, poverty, and education cosmetically -- and voters are satisfied with that. It is, for example, really easy for a candidate to promise he won't \"let the government take your guns away,\" and for him to follow through with that promise! He could, say, vote against any legislation that even hints at the threat of confiscation.\n\nThat doesn't seem terrible. I don't want the government to take away guns from an average citizen. But votes that seem clear-cut can lead to shadowy, tangled and unsustainable policies that, in the end, undercut the goals of everyone involved. Another story in today's Post illustrates the grave and far-reaching consequences of that disconnect between slogans and society: \"ATF's oversight limited in face of gun lobby.\"\n\nIt's a long story -- part of a series, actually -- and the whole thing is worth a read but let me summarize: There are lots of guns available to people who want to commit crimes, and lots of people get away with crimes because we don't know how to find those guns. I don't think \"the gun lobby\" thinks those are good outcomes. But they're what's happening. Just as chilling, in the context of midterm spending, are the number times one comes across facts such as these:\n\n By law, the ATF cannot require dealers to conduct a physical inventory to determine whether any guns have been lost or stolen.\n\n This year's appropriations bill for several key law enforcement agencies reveals the limits imposed by Congress on the ATF. For the FBI, there are 19 lines of congressional direction. For the DEA, there are 10. For the ATF, there are 87 lines, including the requirement to keep the gun-tracing database hidden from the public.\n\n Meanwhile, the [legislative] change requiring Senate confirmation for an ATF chief allowed the gun lobby to have a say on Capitol Hill about the agency's leadership.\n\n By law, the ATF can inspect dealers for compliance only once a year.\n\nEvery \"by law\" stands for a chance for elected officials had to stop what's happening now. That campaign rhetoric sometimes turn figuratively violent is not news, but we should remember that \"waving the bloody shirt\" can also be damningly literal."^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.gq.com/story/why-elections-matter-case-no-1>