I'm very happy about the decision this past week by SCOTUS to open the floodgates of corporations and, to a lesser extent, unions to run as many campaign adverts as they please. The reason I'm a fan is because, in the name of cleaning up elections, what's been done is that the two political factions have centralized control of campaign financing to an extent never before heard of -- if you're a state-level representative, up until this decision by SCOTUS, you'd better be kowtow'ing to the party line in DC or else your rivals in the primary would take all the available financing money. This has led to the recent increase in our already venemously partisan governance. By giving politicians someone else to go out to, hat in hand, besides just the party committees, we'll get better governance.
There's a counter-argument that party committees are limited in the amount they can donate: that's true, but they work around that fact by having party committees from all over the country write the checks, multiplying the limit by the number of local committees available, thus being the only source of "big pocket" funds.
This decision will help moderate candidates, in spite of the histrionics on the radio, and I'm very happy with it.
2 comments:
You really think it will help moderates? I think that since the money seems to go to those with the loudest voices that instead you'll get more extremists on both sides, and less moderates.
That being said, I thought it quite interesting when several CEOs sent a letter to congress today strongly requesting for public campaign funding so they're not getting hit up for money all the time. I'm not sure that a corporation should have the same voice as a citizen for voting (due process okay though) although I'll admit the interests of that citizen/employee and the public good are very entangled and so a corporation speaking out for a greater benefit to its employees and shareholders isn't such a bad thing....but the decision to employ that funding effort isn't always done for the greater benefit of the corp. or its shareholders.
Absolutely; corporations that don't pony up end up in worse condition than those who do, as in any bribe-solicitization scheme.
If it weren't for the 1st-amendment concerns, I'd be all over publicly financed campaigns. But if I have the money to buy a half-hour "Barbara Boxer sucks" infomercial, I don't want someone telling me that I can't put it on the air.
Post a Comment