I’ve been going down a lot of rabbit holes lately.

We’ve got some fiercely contested—and critical—offices up for election in West Michigan. 

The sheer torrent of political advertising hitting us here is stunning. In the lawns, over the air, through the wires, onto the phone, into the mailbox. Occasionally even a knock at (or hanger on) the door.

Little of it is positive. This is all well beyond attempting to draw comparisons between candidates. Its goal is to paint the opponent as unlikeable, unfit, unpatriotic, un-etc. It’s no wonder voters think they’re choosing between the lesser of two evils. 

Even less of it is fully true. Cherry picking a “fact” from a complex bill, lifting a “quote” from an extended speech, implying inaccurate conclusions from a candidate’s religious beliefs—no bending of the truth is too much to achieve electoral victory. 

Here’s a taste: “…is lining his own pockets,” “…fueling extremism, hate, and division,” “…welcomed data centers and left Michiganders behind,” “Too extreme. Too dangerous for Michigan’s future.”

My wife wondered this week, why can’t people be faithful to their religious beliefs when campaigning? Where is the commitment to respect, to honor, to love? Pastor and author Brian Zahnd wrote a “Christian Voter’s Guide” in 2024, which include these two points (out of a list of 10):

3. Don’t be naïve, political parties are more interested in Christian votes than they are in Christian values.

4. The bottom line for political parties is power. The bottom line for a Christian is love. And therein lies the rub.

I have no doubt my wife will follow her convictions and adhere to Zahnd’s 10th point: “It’s more important that your soul be filled with love than it is for your political team to win the game.” I’ll struggle on that point.

Yet, none of this is new. As author Joseph Cummins noted in his 2007 book, Anything for a Vote: Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots, and October Surprises in U.S. Presidential Campaigns, “Probably the only clean election in American history was the first one, in 1789…when George Washington ran unopposed.”  For instance, as Cummins notes, in 1836 Congressman Davy Crockett (!) accused candidate Martin Van Buren of secretly wearing women’s clothing: “He is laced up in corsets!”

The difference now, I think, is the sheer quantity of it—which stems directly from the amount of money being spent, each election cycle setting a new record. One candidate I talked to said he’s had to spend 99% of his personal outreach simply on raising money—in a likely futile attempt to counter the “dark” money flowing in for his opponent (and/or against him).

While personal donations to candidate campaigns are limited to the low thousands ($2000-$5000, depending), the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling opened the floodgates for donations to “independent” super PACs. This has allowed people like Michael Bloomberg to donate $80 million and Elon Musk to dump in more than $350 million for this election.

All of this has led me down these rabbit holes—trying to follow the “dark” money. Tracking down which super PACs the ultrarich are supporting is a time-consuming process. While Bloomberg (pro-Democrat) and Musk (pro-Republican) are relatively easy to determine given their fame, most donors operate more privately.

Here’s how that rolls out in Michigan’s 4th Congressional District: According to Legis1, the Michigan Conservative Action super PAC has spent over $1.3 million against Democratic candidate Sean McCann and none in favor of his Republican opponent, incumbent Bill Huizenga. Legis1 goes on to list other substantial spenders: “No Going Back PAC Inc. spent $4.74 million opposing McCann and $352,000 supporting Huizenga. The House Majority PAC spent $2.87 million opposing Huizenga, and LCV Victory Fund spent $1.82 million opposing Huizenga.”

Given that what’s being said on the campaign trail isn’t truthful, I wonder if we have a new obligation as voters in this de facto oligarchy. Do we need to discover which of the one-percenters are backing a candidate to better understand how they might operate once in office?

It’s more than the average voter has the time or inclination to do, and it’s not a long-term solution (especially the “oligarchy” part of it). It’s my stop-gap action for this year, but I’ll also be voting “yes” on Michigan’s Proposal 2, which is a step forward in campaign finance reform. 

And after this election cycle? For me, it’ll mean continuing to stand against the oligarchy, taking the money out of politics, and empowering the “least of these” to be able to make as clear a choice in the voting booth as possible.

As Dr. Krish Kandiah, former president of the London School of Theology says, voting “is not a privilege to be taken for granted. Those of us who reap the benefits of living in a democracy should play a part in upholding democracy.”