Few fictional soap operas can beat the reality show drama of the campaign to be the Republican candidate in the 2012 presidential election. It offers a perfect combination of sex, money and power combined with a Survivor Island style atmosphere.
Candidates have been the flavor of the month and then been tossed aside by Republicans. Herman Cain has just dropped out after sexual harassment and adultery scandals. Michele Bachmann fell by the wayside when she spread unnecessary fear about the dangers of kids being given a vaccine to prevent a virus that can eventually trigger cervical cancer.
And Rick Perry blew up when he performed worse than the average 14-year-old would in a school debate, even forgetting that he wanted to close down the Department of Energy, which is quite a thing to forget when you are the governor of Texas.
But while all this takes up a lot of airtime and gives the electorate the occasional chuckle, when the race comes into the final straight, nothing is going to be as decisive as the ability to raise money and tons of it.
That's why the Republican controlled House's passage of a bill to abolish the public funding program for presidential campaigns on December 1 gained broad attention, even when the bill is very likely to be killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate.
The public funding program was launched in 1976 after the Watergate scandal, in which the fundraising entity for then incumbent President Richard Nixon was found paying burglars to break into the Democrat National Committee to steal information of rival candidates.
The voluntary program allows the general public to choose to direct $3 of their federal tax to a fund which would match the money raised by presidential candidates from private donors dollar for dollar and up to $250 per contribution. Participating candidates in turn have to follow the rules and limit their campaign spending. Similar programs were launched one after another at the local level.
The programs have not been perfect. Constitutional concerns were raised in court for some local programs that limited nonparticipating candidates' fundraising and spending or granted participating candidates extra money when they were outspent by nonparticipating opponents. Some programs were dismantled by the court.
But the attempt to encourage small amount of donations from the broad general public, limiting campaign spending and enabling less wealthy candidates to get crucial financial support to compete against those with access to fat coffers, is in line with the ideals of democracy.
The problem is there just aren't many people interested. Public participation in the program has dropped from 29 percent in 1980 to 7 percent today.
And compared with the first 16 years of the program when all eligible candidates participated, more and more presidential and other candidates have decided to opt out of the program.
In the 2008 campaign, six major candidates in primary elections decided not to participate, setting a record.
It's not that the candidates don't like to get more money from the public purse. What they cannot afford is the limitation on spending, which, in the cutthroat race of today's political campaigns, is a no-no.
The spending of campaigns at all levels in the US has been skyrocketing, and the presidential campaigns in particular.
In 2004, the presidential campaigns and related activities cost $1 billion, a 56 percent jump from 2002. And in 2008, the costs totaled a record high of $2.4 billion.
Despite his opposition to the House bill, US President Barack Obama didn't participate in the public funding program and spent $740 million in his 2008 campaign, more than the combined spending of the 2004 candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry.
Some of the money comes from small donors, who are more likely to be working class people trying to encourage change than rich businessmen trying to manipulate politics. But with unlimited fundraising and spending, it is almost impossible to avoid special interest groups from influencing elections with their big money.
Also despite the consensus that campaign spending is too damn high, legislative efforts aiming to cap spending always fail. It's hard to break such a vicious cycle.
Democracy has a price anywhere in the world. But in the US there is a specific price tag. And for average people, the number on the tag is too big to make any sense anymore.
The author is a New York-based journalist. rong_xiaoqing@hotmail.com