Many opinions have appeared in the Telegraph and other publications in regard to the recent Supreme Court ruling that reversed some of the campaign financing rules originally established in the McCain-Feingold legislation. The arguments take a pro or a con position based on free speech versus unfair influence on elections. What I have not seen is an answer to the question; why are organizations willing to spend so much to influence elections?

After all, our legislators and our President take an oath to defend the law of our land as represented in the US Constitution. The US Constitution is very specific and limited by the enumerated powers for the President and the legislators.   What possible value can come from influencing who wins the election? 

In reality, the law of our land has become whatever the President says it is. He and the legislators he controls through shared ideology or threats or bribes no longer feel encumbered by the enumerated powers of the Constitution. This is not a new phenomenon and can be traced back to Presidents and Legislators early in our Republic.   However, just as a marksman who’s aim is one degree off at the site will be miles off at the target, so it has become with today’s representatives in Washington.  

Now organizations such as corporations, unions and other special interests cannot know their protections under the law or their obligations under the law because the law is based on opinion of those in power. Our current President has made his unfavorable opinion of banks quite clear. I respect that banker no longer believe they are protected under the law; property rights will not apply to them as enumerated in the 4^th Amendment.   Hence, if I were a banker I may well wish to influence the election of a new President that does not hate me and have my property in his sights.

Just as the best solution to our rampant drug problem in this country is to educate our children in the dangers of drug use and to encourage moral values and responsibility, we should do the same for our election laws. That is take away the demand for political influencing by limiting the political influence in our lives.    

The old adage that politics and religion are sure to generate controversy is true. That is why most columnists write about politics and religion. So Leonard Pitts’ column dismissing religion as an “ugly thing” will do what he intended and will generate controversy. 

The beautiful thing is that controversy does not affect the reality of God and his expectations for his church. Mr. Pitts points out, in his hit piece on religion, that we live in a fallen world. God knows that already and so do people of the church. The bible gives far more damning evidence than Mr. Pitts of how far mankind can fall short of God’s expectations. Beginning with Cain’s killing of his brother Able through King David’s affair with Bathsheba to the mobs in Jerusalem that killed God Incarnate Himself. Ever since Adam and Eve ate fruit from the tree of knowledge, mankind has sought to replace God with his own judgment; just as Mr. Pitts’ did in his judgment on the church and religion in this country.

The statistics surrounding religious affiliation in the United States is unfortunate. However, our relationship with God through his church has always seen difficulties and blessings. Paul’s letters to the early churches in Rome, Corinth and Thessalonica during the first century could easily apply to our churches today. But there is good news today as well. The Christian church is growing in Africa and Latin America. The Lutheran Church World Relief efforts provide money and supplies to the missionaries on the ground in Kenya to deal with the famine. There are many efforts of this kind dealing with the results of living in a fallen world from food missions in our inner cities to providing education alternatives from public schools that do not let Christian values exist.    

God does not need a favorable press; alibi a favorable press would make the good work of religious people easier. God and his church cannot be defined by columnists. He defines himself through his Word. Lee Strobel, a former editor at the Chicago Tribune, once sought to persuade people that religion was wrong in its belief. He took an intellectually honest approach only to prove the Case for Faith.