Candidates seeking reelection should have to offer more than just incumbency. Holding office isn’t an entitlement. Though fondly called “Our,” elected officials shouldn’t automatically retain office. Elections shouldn’t embrace a form of nepotism.

On the flip side, even though democratically imposed, term limits are too limiting upon the will of the people when continued incumbency is truly warranted. As granted SCOTUS appointments, some politicians should serve for life. Recurrent elections should be opportunity enough for voters to change horses.

Somewhere between those two realities is where our current political landscape lies and the deception of our touted self-rule hides. Despite all the expressed dissatisfaction with how we are governed most criticism remains unaddressed at the ballot box. Until removed by statute, most of those voted into office remain there until their permitted tenure is maxed out. Rarely are they shown the door.

Maybe that’s because having gotten the most votes in the last election puts a once supportive electorate in the awkward position of having to admit they made a poor choice the first time around. Maybe it’s because familiarity breeds contempt but also sufficient content that the status quo, no matter how unsatisfactory, is ultimately more attractive or less fearful than the new and unknown. It could also well be because those occupying office have the elite backing of an established order even less inclined to admit any need of embracing a change in present leadership. Those already at-bat have a distinct advantage towards staying in the game, no matter what their stats actually show if the electorate would take the time to acquaint themselves.

Money is the major game changer. That’s what we’re repeatedly told, especially from those making a living collaterally funded by political contributions to the unending gamesmanship of election and retention. My inbox is stuffed with such solicitations 24-7 year-round.

I recently saw a plea from Sen. King’s campaign asking for $5 or more to help keep his “voice in the senate” “advocating for the issues that matter,” and that as an Independent candidate he counts “entirely”on the support of “people like you.” The personalized form letter stated that 83 percent of his campaign contributions are less than $100 with 67 percent coming from Maine.

A quick Google search revealed some “alternative facts.” According to an AP News account, at the end of March Sen. King’s war chest stood at $2.3 million compared to challengers Democrat Zak Ringelstein’s $29,000 and Republican Eric Brakey’s $84,000. A more recent Open Secrets.Org report similarly puts King’s 2013-2018 fundraising at close to $5 million of which half remains. However, strikingly at odds with Sen. King’s assessment, over 85 percent of his campaign financing reportedly came not from small individual contributions but rather from large donors and PACs. Top contributors were listed as J Street, Paloma Partners, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman.

Given Sen. King’s unwavering support of Israel, Wall Street and defense interests, such directly related financing for his continued lockstep voice in Congress isn’t surprising. It’s not called a “war chest” for nothing, and accepting formidable money from a bastion of “risk management” certainly seems a most practical hedging of one’s bet for re-election. That the magnitude of such support wasn’t mentioned in asking for additional grassroots underwriting in also understandable, if not a model of transparency.

Ironically, at an Intel hearing on Aug. 1, Sen. King forcefully expressed his view that “There is a massive effort to misinform the American people,” even beyond the flap concerning Russian interference in our politics. He then proposed the remedy of “media literacy,” starting in our public schools as a required course teaching discernment of what’s real and what’s not within the e-reality Americans so addictively inhabit.

That’s a profound turnaround from when as governor his most memorable achievement championed the unquestioned benefit of Internet exposure to every 7th grader. Maybe he should run his latest educational recommendation past Zak Ringelstein who actually is a teacher.

Maybe my e-search takeaway on the King campaign’s contribution breakdown versus Open Secrets’s version isn’t contradictory but just another confusing manipulation of media information, as innocent as a misread semantic distinction of what “people like you” or “entirely” was meant to convey. No Russian involvement at all.

Getting money out of politics would eliminate a great deal of such distractions as to whom is a candidate’s true constituency and how independent any candidate really is. Congress’s other Independent senator’s example of independence is to forego PAC money altogether. Zak Ringlestein’s kindred politics also calls big money out as the greatest impediment to progressive change.

Holding public office is a sacred trust. Just showing up isn’t good enough. Ditto polished but always reactive statesmanship. Serving in office shouldn’t be confused with simply holding onto that office. Serving special interests, rather than providing politically costly but crucial visionary leadership on issues serving everyone’s interests, is not something that should be condoned or rewarded by rote re-election.

Perhaps Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez’s historic upset victory in New York’s congressional primary will give Zak Ringelstein’s senate bid here a more serious look from those resigned towards docilely accepting Angus King’s supposed re-election inevitability.

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.