Going off of my final point in my post below, here is a great Ted Talk from Lawrence Lessig on The Problem with Money in Politics: Here are some major points: 1. The founders of this country laid the framework for a society where the people have the power. We fund, we vote, and we elect those we decide to be in power. Those that are elected will represent the will of the overall constituency in their districts. For years, there have been limits put in place on how much a politician can take for financial campaigns, and who and what was allowed to contribute. It used to be that corporations, religious entities, and businesses werent allowed to contribute at all to finance campaigns, and that individuals could only spend a limited amount of money to publicly finance another individual. 2. The Supreme Courts decisions on two important cases (Citizens United and McCutcheon) based on campaign finance are logically wrong and have led to a conflict of interest in what our republic and the power of the people actually means. Although, these decisions probably wont be overturned without a constitutional amendment on campaign finance. -The cases and decisions: 1. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: The Supreme Court sided with the lobbying group Citizens United by basically saying that corporations are people and as such, are allowed to spend money to finance election campaigns. Last time I checked corporations werent people. That is why they are called CORPORATIONS. From SCOTUS Blog on the decision: Because aggregate limits restricting how much money a donor may contribute to candidates for federal office, political parties, and political action committees do not further the government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption, while at the same time seriously restricting participation in the democratic process, they are invalid under the First Amendment. 2. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission: In this case, the Supreme Court went so far as to say that putting limits on campaign finance is unfair because money is a way to let your voice and ideas be heard through campaign finance and making it easier for people to get elected. In other words, money is speech and speech is also money. So, the supreme court has made what was an unalienable right for everyone into a simple commodity. A commodity that only the rich can afford. From SCOTUS Blog on the decision: Because aggregate limits restricting how much money a donor may contribute to candidates for federal office, political parties, and political action committees do not further the government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption, while at the same time seriously restricting participation in the democratic process, they are invalid under the First Amendment. What these two decisions by the Supreme Court has decided is that it is okay for corporations and rich people, with interests of their own outside the general public, to bend the wills of politicians through monetary means. Certainly, this has always happened in the background of politics and campaigns, but now their are literally no rules or laws that can be put in place until a consititutional amendment stating that money is a commodity and not speech is put in place. So now, we are left with a nation of what should be 311 million that have the power to one of a hundred thousand or so people that hold all of the power. The supreme court has effectively transformed our country from a Democratic Republic into a Plutocracy. 3. The overall conflict is that now our government bends to the whims and will of those that get it elected first and the whims and will of the general public second. This shows in a recent study by HuffPo that typically, congressmen and women spend about 75% of their day making fundraising calls to large corporate entities. The question is why? 4: ITS THE MONEY PEOPLE!!! Realistically speaking, say Coca Cola gives you a million dollars to finance your campaign and you win. Now, say that Coca Cola is having a hard time because the FDA coming down on them about something they are putting in their soda. Now, say you are able to get a bill to the floor that eventually turns into a law that takes Coca Colas problem with the FDA away. Well, you can imagine Coke is going to be pretty damned happy about that at the end of your term, and statistically speaking, youll probably have a comfy million dollar a year board of directors job waiting for you when you get out of office. It all comes down to money, power, and ultimately greed in the end. Look no further than the bills and laws that have passed or not passed in the last few years since the Citizens United decision was brought down. Youll notice a trend of corporate interests over the publics interests, and that is the problem. Logically speaking, getting money out of politics would fix a lot of our problems in our country, and is the systemic reason why there are so many conflicts across the aisle between our two major parties. Mark my words, this will be the main issue and talking point of the next election cycle.
Posted on: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 01:04:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015