June 16, 2003
Follow The Money
Follow The Money:
If money is the mothers milk of politics, then Bush got milk
But Gephardt is sitting at the other teat
And here are the ten biggest mothers in the US
Then compare the groups with the top individual donors
Notice anything?
I see a strange disconnect between the top group donors (mostly Labor and Dem friendly) and the top individual donors (mostly wealthy barons of industry). Its obvious theres a lot at stake and savvy operators will play both sides against the middle.
The little guys have to bundle their influence, while the barons of industry can speak for themselves. Now, if you were running for national office, whose money would take? Who would you listen to?
Nader is right.
Posted by grover at June 16, 2003 12:59 PMI personally think campaign contributions are a matter of free speech. But it’s apparent that there is favoritism and pull that is used by contributors, which is unethical and wrong. We culd probably fix the system by using a 3rd party (heh) to hold the funds and not disclose the contributors until AFTER the election, and keep the contribution totals a secret until right before campaigning begins (so there would be a window for campaigning).
Revealing who you contributed to before the elections would be a serious offense and would be harshly punished.
Anyone have any other ideas on this?
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at June 16, 2003 01:08 PMI disagree with Mitch McConnell and the Supremes that campaign contributions are a form of free speech.
Contributions can quickly become rather expensive speech.
But seriously, what that means is your $1000 gift is speaks louder than my $10 one. Your big gift and contributions to the Gucci shod lobbyists get more access than my contribution and one vote. There is no serious argument that Money does not buy influence. More money buys more influence.
The dependence on money is poisoning our political system.
Posted by: RE Cronn at June 16, 2003 01:23 PMThe idea of campaign contributions being equivalent to free speech is analogous to the idea that you should only have the rights and freedoms you can afford to buy. I’m unclear on how this can be considered appropriate in a putative representative democracy. The rich can buy the influence to get laws that favor them passed, whereas without massive organizational efforts, the common interest is sacrificed for the benefit of the rich. This is as anti-democratic as the idea that corporations are people.
Posted by: rev_matt at June 16, 2003 01:45 PM
