If money is free speech…why does it cost so much for a candidate to talk?
Why can someone who can set the rules be bought?
The Supreme Court recently ruled that money is free speech, in regards to campaign contributions. The question that needs to be brought to the court is…why are campaign contributions legal?
How can an entity regulate the very industries that sponsored it? In a land that prides itself on the separation of church & state…why do we not frown on the co-mingling of government & money?
It’s truly the height of irony that we’re holding ourselves up as the beacon of democracy to the Middle East—yet we openly allow legal bribes in the guise of campaign contributions.
Granted, reading “Game Change”, the fascinating book describing the 2008 presidential race, it became clear that Barack Obama was a much better manager & leader than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Obama’s cool, smart decisions regarding the finances & strategies of his campaign dwarfed the wayward & discombobulated ways Hilary & McCain ran their organizations. So did this test mean Obama would be the better president & leader? I would’ve said yes, & sorry, the jury is still out on whether Obama will end up an effective president(directed @ my dear reactionary conservatives).
But it could be argued that effectively running a business in the real world is a much, much better arbiter of someone’s management skills & leadership abilities. George W. Bush ran the most “effective” campaign twice, assembling a veritable ton of money in the process…yet he ran every business he tried in the real world into the ground, & it’s fairly inarguable that he ran this country so far into the ground that poor Obama is still digging out from the wreckage(& yes, people essentially thought Obama was a superhero who would “solve” everything in two months, much less two years….a sad & tragic thought process).
& I somehow suspect that the big money that went towards Bush were from people who looked @ him, heard about him behind closed doors, & knew he could be controlled.
So what am I saying here? I think it’s fairly simple—stop running campaigns like a big business, & start running government more like one.
Hey, here’s but one idea…no more going into debt (devaluing our currency, & ultimately making us vulnerable) for wars we can’t win anyway—against Communism spreading back in the day, because Communism was always going to defeat itself eventually…& now against the spreading of radical Islam, because dropping bombs & sending in troops is not exactly the way to inspire the hearts & minds of the people in the street. We have the technology & capabilities to pick off the leadership of the true scumbags who mean innocent people harm. Oh, & we have the Bomb. The last trump card…but it’s really trump card one.
As for campaigns—why can we not run simple ads/columns every Sunday in the papers & on key news websites during the (shortened) campaign season. The candidates’ positions get clearly & rationally articulated, & these “ads” will be directed @ the more thoughtful & educated voter, as opposed to strategically stupid simple sound bites that gum up the intellectual discourse & thought process of most voters. There is no legitimate reason why Wall St. & huge corporations should be allowed to essentially buy candidates.
& there is no reason why it is legal. Well, other than the fact that the people setting the rules keep allowing it to happen. & to truly understand the people who are writing the rules & setting the regulations, I want a new rule—any congressman who appears on T.V., in addition to listing what state he represents…must have his top 3 corporate campaign sponsors listed as well.
& maybe eventually big business will see it as dumb business to keep throwing money @ campaigns. Money is supposed to be the dispassionate yet honest exchange agent representing reality. What dreams or nightmares may come…
…when reality’s will arrives.