Sunday, September 6, 2009
Being for Campaign Finance Reform
The Supreme Court is set when it returns on September 9, a month early, to decide if there should be no limit on how and when corporations and unions can give to political campaigns, a law that has been in place for 100 years. Does this sound like dismantling the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 and the Glass Stegall Act of 1933 which aided in the corruption on Wall Street that nearly brought the global financial system to a screeching halt and eroded the savings of millions of Americans? Here I was thinking that we should do away with corporate financing altogether and the Supreme Court will soon decide if corporations and unions should have no limit at all. Does this not undermine our representative democracy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think there is something wrong with the American character. How else can there be an explaination for people getting bent out of shape because the President of the United States wants to address kids on the first day of school and ask them to work hard. This attitide has absolutly nothing to do with corporations and lobbists - and the overturning of the Glass Stegal act has as much to do with the myth that smaller government is better (i.e. no regulation) as it has to do with lobbists - I'm not against campaign finace reform, but how can something like that get done when we can't seem to get health care done. We are the only developed nation with no national health care policy. In many ways, we are not even a nation. We are all supposed to feel blessed that we live in this 'land of opporunity', but if these 'oppotunities' don't show up, we are supposed to fend for ourselves all in the name of 'freedom'. I think this speaks to something terribly wrong with the American character. We don't care about each other. Most of the national commentators are more interested in building their brand then they are about the state of the nation. The problem with this country has more to do with the man in the mirror than anyone else.
Thanks for your comment, Zorro.
You address some things that may or may not fit cohesively. By this I mean it seems illogical to suggest that just because we are "debating" health care reform that we should not look at other necessary reforms. Campaign reform is necessary now. It seems that the Supreme Court called this rare special session, returning early to allow or at least hear corporate voices with regards to campaign finance in preparation for 2010.
Yes, the unions will be affected if we do away with this longstanding law that inhibits unlimited corporate finance. But corporations will be the big winners if there are no restrictions in financing and the unions and the people will be the losers. In this sense, can we really say that we are a Democracy when it is already an uphill battle to get those elected to serve the people, not to serve themselves? Who can compete with hundreds of million of corporate campaign dollars?
Regarding the President's address to school children, it is so reprehensible that I have to ask is there no shame to the tactics of these people? Oh, I understand the reasoning. Negativity works in elections. They are looking ahead to 2010. These voices are the same voices that seek to de-legitimize this particular president from the birth certificate controversy to the Hitler controversy to the address to school children. The insidiousness is that these things often take root in the psyche of many, inhibiting growth in many areas and eroding our national identity.
I look at these things and wonder what does the international community think of us?
Post a Comment