Trending
When I think about the idea of free and fair elections, my thoughts sometimes turn to my first few days as a Marshall High School freshman.
As part of organizing a student council, every homeroom elected a representative. This took place as students from Marshall Middle School, Holy Redeemer, Samuel Lutheran and Lynd were integrating into a freshman class.
Even though we came from different schools, many of us knew each other because of church, Scouts, 4-H, community education programs and our neighborhoods.
We knew enough about each other to form opinions about who would be a good leader. Two Middle School kids volunteered to serve my homeroom and gave short speeches about why they wanted the job.
I decided to vote for the one who seemed the most outgoing. It was a secret ballot. We closed our eyes, cast our votes and were told by Mrs. Otterson who won.
It was democracy at its best. Neither candidate invested any money. Neither one made any promises other than to do their best. Neither of them criticized their opponent. It was a simple but effective process, one that served us well for the entire school year.
Three years later In Mr. Grabau's economics and government class we learned that ideally our local, state and national elections should be just as fair.
We knew enough as high school seniors, however, to realize that it often wasn't the case in the adult world. Instead there were enormous campaign donations, promises kept, promises that weren't kept, and constant propaganda.
It's gotten steadily worse in every decade since my teenage years. We now have Elon Musk who donated $75 million in 2024 to the Trump campaign and millions in 2026 to Republican midterm candidates.
Musk heads a list of wealthy one percent people who donate massive amounts of money to political candidates. It's reached a point where individual campaign spending should be limited to $1,000 per person.
It would mean that society wouldn't waste nearly as much money on election losers. They also wouldn't invest as much in candidates who manage to get elected but then turn out to be ineffective.
Imagine a world where an average Joe Blow could come up with $1,000, back one candidate or divide his $1,000 among at least several, and have just as much financial influence as Elon Musk. I believe it would be a better world.
In the long run it would probably even benefit Musk and other wealthy individuals. They could follow in the footsteps of U.S. Steel founder Andrew Carnegie by investing in libraries, museums, public broadcasting and other worthy causes.
If they did that I would praise them. I would call them pure philanthropists and true patriots. The millions not spent on politics could greatly enrich many lives.
Continuing along the same lines could backfire on them. The more they throw money at their chosen candidates, the more they might push average people toward democratic socialism.
It's a very real possibility in 2026. The recent Minnesota Poll included a statistic that a full 30 percent of Minnesotans who consider themselves Democrats also call themselves democratic socialists. Most of them are located in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, but a fair number are found in Greater Minnesota.
Instead of political money, we need a far greater amount of person to person campaign activity. We need torchlight parades, a tradition that was started in the 1840s. We need whistle stop train tours popularized after World War II by Harry Truman.
We especially need objective media coverage that follows the Fairness Doctrine by giving equal time to both major parties. There also should be extensive coverage of local non-partisan races with equal time for all candidates.
I'd like to see our community, state and nation become a little more like freshman homeroom. My classmates and I approached our new friends and new school with open minds.
Most of us dreamed of what we might be able to accomplish in our four years of high school. We were excited by the fact that it could be a step toward many worthwhile achievements in college and careers.
Hopefully voters in 2026 acquire the same sort of mindset. They should want to be part of decisions that make the world a better place.
There should be a desire to avoid narrow political agendas and to avoid thinking only of one's own economic and social self interest. If it takes a $1000 contribution limit for each adult voter we should go for it. If that's not possible, there's always a chance it could happen through public awareness.
-- Jim Muchlinski is a longtime reporter and contributor to the Marshall Independent