Every day I get a
bunch of emails asking me for money so we true blue liberals can defeat the
various evil conservatives. And, I will likely give some, but I sign a lot more
petitions. I also sure that you of the conservative persuasion receive the same
email just in reverse. It’s rather like the ad I am currently seeing on TV
where it is the same ad, they just change the name of the one they are
condemning following by fake internet searches.
There is no doubt the
cost of political campaigns have reached ridiculous proportions as seen in the
church below.
I’m going to be
redundant here but money spent on elections does not help the political process;
the only ones who benefit are the advertisers.
I still believe that
campaigns should just be a mandatory $2 or $3 of your income tax, divvied up
among the candidates. They can then spend that money as they see fit for two to
three months before the actual election. And the media could just publish the
position statements in their respective media without undue commentary so the
voters have facts upon which they would base their vote. I also believe that
libel and slander laws ought to apply to candidates so they can no longer lie
about each other freely.
Of course I realize
that this has about a snowballs chance in Hades of ever happening, candidates as
ad folk won’t let it. But it would certainly be good fodder for a grass roots
movement. Our present system, in my opinion, makes it next to impossible for
politicians to maintain integrity if they want to have any chance of winning.
Again, look for models
in Europe which seem to do a much better job of controlling what happens in
their political campaigns.
This is the thing that sucks about the reversal of campaign finance reform. Now with the giant shiploads of money coming through from the likes of American Crossroads and their ilk, you have to start donating to your side to compensate just as a defensive measure lest every election and every future government be completely bought and paid for by a couple of superPACs. It becomes, in effect, an extra tax.
ReplyDeleteA telling chart too. It seems political advertising is our nation's biggest growth industry for the forseeable future. Which itself is depressing on so many levels.
"The reactionary judicial activists on the Supreme Court do their best to advance the role of big money in politics. In decisions like the 2009 Citizens United case, the Court's reactionary majority repeated its arcane contrivance that (1) rich corporations are "persons" with human rights and (2) money is a form of speech.
ReplyDeleteBy imposing spending limitations we supposedly are restricting free speech and violating the First Amendment. Some years ago Justice Stevens took issue with this fanciful fabrication, reminding us that "Money is property; it is not speech." But money is the kind of property that feeds into and mobilizes all sorts of other power resources. I haven't mentioned the other influential roles that money plays beyond election campaigns: ownership of print and broadcast media, control of jobs, financing research institutes, recruiting and training conservative activists, bankrolling lobbyists, and the like.
Heed not the system's apologists who treat a money-driven political process as a matter of no great moment. Truth be told: if you're not in the money, you're not much in the game. It's time we faced up to the plutocracy that masquerades as democracy." Micheal Parenti
"I still believe that campaigns should just be a mandatory $2 or $3 of your income tax, divvied up among the candidates. "
ReplyDeleteI very strongly oppose this. The government needs to reduce its involvement in political campaigns (i.e. the ruling elites choosing people.... like they have in mainland China), not increase it.
------------
"In decisions like the 2009 Citizens United case, the Court's reactionary majority repeated its arcane contrivance that (1) rich corporations are "persons" with human rights and (2) money is a form of speech."
Not at all. In the case of (1), they merely protected the rights of individuals speak out even if they are members of certain disliked organizations. And with (2), money is indeed a form of speech for those who push for campaign finance reform like McCain-Feingold. Because they see cutting off the money flow as a way to achieve censorship.
In fact, I have read numerous pieces be members of the "Move to Amend" push to bring back censorship, and they mention the need to cut off money as a way to censor political advertising.
If money isn't speech, and cutting off money can never be a form of censorship, I'd like to float an idea by you. What if politicians did not like what newspapers say. So they impose an 8000% tax on printer ink.
It's all OK, right? it is only cutting off money, and money is not speech, right?
There's something really outrageous about what you propose, which means being forced to subsidize, through tax dollars, the campaigns of the likes of Pat Buchanan and Cynthia McKinnon. This should be left up to individuals, not the ruling elites.
I'd rather have the $2 or $3 go to childhood vaccinations, than for the government to pick and choose our candidates for us.
-------------
The first chart shows about $13 billion. Looks pretty outrageous, until you compare it it to other things. It's somewhat less than what Americans spend on pet food each year. It's a third of what Americans spend on cosmetics each year.
I am no apologist for a "money-driven political process". I just happen to believe that our civil liberties, including the right to speak out against our rulers, are very important and not to be tossed out.