In a typical 5/4 decision the supreme court has decided that corporations,
labor unions, and foundations can now contribute without limit to political
contests. How wonderful is that? Now the political races will be decided by
huge pressure groups who are looking after nothing except their bottom line.
We little people with our tiny little contributions will no longer be of any
consequence. To my surprise, many conservatives seem to think this is just fine
and some of the liberals are opposed. This is a first for your humble scribe. I am
siding with the libs. How embarrasing.
I harken back to a previous blog in which I suggested the simple solution
to all the problems with political contributions. IF YOU CAN NOT VOTE FOR THEM
YOU CAN NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THEM. No more cioporation or labor union
dough. No more out of state interlopers trying to influence state matters.
It would be easy to enforce. WE could even limit individuals to $5,000 bucks
or so.
I sometimes wonder why our government is so screwed up and stupod.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I am appalled by the decision, and gratified that we have common ground.
The ONLY reason I can fathom that the decision was made this way, is that the government taxes corporations. However, every corporation is already comprised of people, who are allowed to contribute and vote individually, with their corporate affliciation being one of the inputs to their voting decision.
A 5-4 decision, so certainly this was not a slam dunk... too bad precedent and such does not account for such split decisions.
In the last national election, unions contributed tens of millions to the democrats' campaigns (via PAC's and other legal means) to try to pass the "Employee Free Choice Act." Those of us opposed to this legislation were limited in how much we could contribute to fight it. If you are not familiar with the EFCA, I urge you to look at it and decide for yourself whether you think it is fair.
I do disagree with the current Supreme Court (over)ruling, but currently there are too many loopholes in the law and somehow, politicians are still beholden to special interests. Maybe this will bring more transparency to the table(and I am not referring to Obama's kind of transparency!)
Nancy - glad you disagree with the ruling... nice that most of us land on the same side of this Supreme court atrocity.
PACs of course are at least as financially influential for Republicans as they are for Democrats.
Your logic however, would be akin to a ruling that since rapists can get off easy, sometimes serving less than 2 years, we should release convicted murderers earlier too - just to be fair.
The only bright side, and we will see how this pans out, is that this ugly ruling will light a fire under the remaining branches of government to enact laws to close those loopholes.
Hey Tom, I am all for letting most convicted murderers out earlier! Think of the tax dollars saved. I also favor getting rid of the death penalty -- not cause I disagree with it, but cause it saves millions (maybe billions) of taxpayer dollars! Ok, so that was a bit of tongue in cheek -- but remember that lawyers (especially malpractice and personal injury lawyers), insurance companies, unions, universities, etc. can also benefit from this Supreme Court ruling and will decidedly benefit the Democrats. Corporations do have to answer to shareholders -- mostly, the prior do not. I am actually as worried about this decision from the opposite side as you are. Your point of view changes if you own a business that you have invested hundreds of thousandsof dollars in and countless hours of labor for about 10 years.
Nancy... you are too funny. You actually managed to make your case and keep a straight face while doing so...
You need to be careful with arguments... when you know the answer you are looking for, all roads lead to Rome.
Post a Comment