That is very true. Government is FOR SALE. Bought-and-paid-for incumbents ignore voters and are too beholding to their big-money-donor-puppeteers.

Also, there are some other very important reasons why incumbents win.
It is because incumbents have many unfair advantages:
(1) Perks of Office: Incumbents have more party support and resources to draw upon. Each member of Congress has an office budget allowance (provided by tax-payers). That allowance is large enough to employ a sizable staff both in Washington, D.C. and in their home states or districts. This staff provides a huge advantage, and tax-payers fund it. In addition, members of Congress also have travel allowances for trips between Washington and their constituencies, and also for trips inside their states or districts. Also, House and Senate members can use the United Stated Postal Service for free for informational letters or announcements to their constituents.
(2) Time: Members of Congress and their staffers not only get paid (by the tax-payers) while campaigning and raising money for their campaign war-chest, but they have the time (as part of what they are supposed to do within their job description). But challenging candidates are not provided the time or money by the tax-payers. In contrast, a candidate challenging an incumbent is not paid to do those things, but must determine how to fund it. Many candidates go into debt.
(3) Visibility and Access to News Media: Members of Congress have visibility by virtue of being elected, have easy access to the news media, make appearances on television, radio, and are frequently mentioned in newspaper articles and editorials.
(4) Campaign Organization: Members of Congress have the advantage of the experience of having managed a campaign organization (and winning), and already have a volunteer campaign organization in place.
(5) Money: The biggest advantage that incumbents have is the ability to raise large contributions. Big-money-donors prefer predictability. Incumbents already have pre-existing big-money-donors. Incumbents that refuse to cater to their big-money-donors are not likely to receive more big-money contributions. 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money. Unfortunately, government is FOR SALE.

Year 1998:____Incumbents:___Challengers:
U.S. HOUSE:___ $ 772,016 ___ $ 207,107
U.S. SENATE:__$ 5,578,470 __$ 2,442,660

Hence, incumbents have many unfair advantages (some funded by the tax-payers).
(6) Apathy, Complacency, Futility, and Despair:
Many voters:
[] do not feel voting is worthwhile. Many understand the difficulty of unseating an incumbent, and believe it is futile to even try.
[] do not believe the voters can organize to vote similarly to achieve any particular goal, due to partisan loyalties, and partisan warfare that distracts and divides the people from ever forming a majority to vote out irresponsible incumbents.
[] do not feel a need to vote. In the 2004 election, 78 million (39%) of the 200 million eligible voters (in the United States) did not vote.
[] do not consider candidates individually (regardless of party), and vote strictly based on party affiliation.
[] do not have the time or motivation to learn more about their government. Many do not even know who their senators or representatives are.
[] do not want their vote to go to waste, so they vote for one of the candidates that has a chance of winning; not the candidate that is most qualified.
[] think their party cares about them, and believe there is power in numbers. However, if their party really does not care about them, their is only a bigger problem. Hence, voters must take off their partisan blinders, and learn about the Power in Small Numbers, and learn how to use their vote wisely and responsibly.

Whatever the reasons for the apathy, complacency, futility, and despair, they all benefit the incumbents. Also, third-party and independent candidates are at an even greater disadvantage.

That is why third parties and independents, most of all, should be trying harder to educate the voters about how newcomers to congress are rendered powerless to change the status quo.

Excellent points, d.a.n.

Recently someone pointed out this article to me that demonstrates just how far some incumbents will go to keep their seats.

Here's a snippet:

Hillary's detectives engaged in "a systematic campaign to intimidate, frighten, threaten, discredit and punish innocent Americans whose only misdeed is their desire to tell the truth in public," former Clinton adviser Dick Morris charged in the New York Post of Oct. 1, 1998.

In his book, "Hillary's Secret War," author Richard Poe explains that Pellicano's violent career as a private investigator reveals much about the sorts of qualifications Hillary sought in her "Shadow Team."

It is my sincere hope that Anthony Pellicano is kept off the streets, so that no more politicians can hire him to do their dirty work.

More to the point...if a politician needs to hire such a man to keep their seat, they DESERVE to be voted out!