Simple really. Who benefits from maintaining the illusion of a democratic process while actually ensuring that only their own paid sponsorship determines all "winnable" contestants and their subsequent obligations as "representatives"?

Calling the circus performances silly is to miss their very serious underlying purpose of legitimizing the pre-ordained outcome and its ultimate consequences as a product of the Greatest Democracy on Earth (TM).

As for the expense, SCOTUS uncapped that in the interest of more "free speech." Freedom ain't free, dontcha know.

"Campaigns this year are likely to spend a record $3 billion on television advertising" -- Laura Flanders

This money feeds the machine, or as Ken Kesey labeled it in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Combine. While the sociopaths and psychopaths plunder and profit, "We the People" are chewed up and spit out!

$3 billion into BIG media, from corporations, feeding into a completely corrupt political system, that does NOT serve "We the People." All justly allowed by a judicial system that does NOT serve "We the People," either.

And, we know that the corporations have NO interest (morally or financially) in anything other than profits -- which trump people every time. Think of what $3 billion could help to provide -- if humanity, with a true sense of compassion and empathy, were served rather than the greed and avarice of faux personhood and corporations.

My cam pain ad. Hello, my name is____fill in blanks; and I am running for ____ and I was not allowed to approve this ad, by my ___party so had to finance it out of pocket and would like to say that___my opponent is a good,kind,and decent person and this mudslinging has to stop.

"Mudslinging may be good for ratings, but it's no way to make decisions about our shared future."

Maybe it's not the mudslinging campaign silliness that will come to an end, but rather the "shared future".

Addressing the real problems that face the world is not just a matter of improving the political atmosphere, it's a matter of national and human survival.

From what I've seen so far, my money is on failure.

The campaign attacks in Georgia governor's race have reached a new level of viciousness. Just sickening the way their brutal vitriol assaults the human ear - even for mere seconds before mute button becomes engaged.

Why are they completely shameless in their disregard for civility and public welfare?? People are damaged by govt/ corporate collusion, and we don't need another force-feeding of toxic poison. Any reasoning voter should recognize the honest measurement of how they will "serve" citizens.

All words/ thoughts have the energy to impact mass consciousness. If the way we treat others (even an opponent) is a reflection of general respect for living things, these two guys shouldn't be allowed to scoop dog doo-doo. But maybe they have earned it for an entree!

Because I find her real easy to look at, I watch Laura with the sound off and think about her Panama. Then I get here and have to find out something she said. Blimey! Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

--Trylon

All active entities, from microbes to nations, always face exactly one central, basic question, which is What is to be done?

The degree of silliness of a political system can be measured by examining how many removes or degrees of separation exist between that question and the one being discussed at the moment.

From this metric one can easily see that at its conceivable best, our current form is pretty silly. It rarely gets any closer than Who shall lead us? And even then the actual content has more to do with character and personality, venal shortcomings, admirability, and the like.

It's not an adaptive way to run a railroad and will cost us dearly unless we adopt a better system that gets a lot closer to asking the germane question.

In my small community the political signs are about equal to the for sale signs. The sign industry might be a good investment.

"Who Profits from Silly Campaign Season?"

I hope this a rhetorical question and that Ms. Flanders is not seriously asking that question much less expecting an answer. I couldn't go past that point with the article to see which one it was.