Conservatives 'making' their mark? |
HOW ELSE CAN anybody of sense interpret a ruling that lets the wealthiest amongst us use their money to give themselves an even bigger voice?
I
know there are those who will claim this is a matter of “freedom of expression.”
Which I just don’t buy. Writing out a check isn’t expression, it’s an action.
There are many actions we can take that get regulated. This shouldn’t be any
different.
There
also are those who claim that this merely equals out the political playing
field in that organized labor has assorted committees that produce significant
funding for the Democratic Party interests they favor.
Why
not let the Republicans have a good-sized wallet as well? It’s just that I’ve
never really seen a starving GOP candidate’s campaign – unless it’s someone who’s
such an ideological nitwit that he embarrasses the party operatives to the
point where they are deliberately squeezing him dry.
THERE
ARE ALREADY many business-oriented organizations that are more than capable of
coming up with funds for the candidates of their preference. And we already
have elections that skyrocket to record levels every election cycle.
Which
funds the continued acts of trivial and hostile nonsense that takes over any
serious comprehension of issues or what a candidate stands for.
Why
would anyone think that throwing more gasoline/cash on the fire/campaign is an
improvement?
Or are they bolstering 'free speech?' |
But
that is what the nation’s high court decided earlier this week when it
eliminated the overall limit of money an individual can give in any particular
cycle.
THE
LIMITS ON donations to individual candidates remain. But now, people can give
to as many candidates as they can afford. Before, they would hit the limit, and
would have to pick and choose which people were worthy of their money.
It
can be argued that the court decision came to us by a 5-4 vote, based on the
ideological lines that divide the court. Which will have some arguing that it
loses any legitimacy it might otherwise have.
Personally,
I’m just dismayed that somebody wants to put more money into mindless campaign
spending. Some people must think the most extremely wealthy deserve an even
bigger voice because they most likely had an ancestor who was successful in
business so they could get the inheritance.
And
yes, this is a tiny group of people we’re talking about. The Center for
Responsive Politics says that last year, only 591 people (out of the more than
300 million who live in the United States) made so many donations that they
reached the now-defunct limit.
ANYBODY
WHO THINKS I’m over-reacting ought merely to look at the election cycle we have
now. It’s only early April, and we’ve already got an entire campaign’s worth of
nonsense in the fight for governor.
We
got a Republican primary where Bruce Rauner used his own significant wealth to
fund his efforts, while also choking off any funding sources that his opponents
might have tapped into.
Is this what more campaign cash gets us? |
With
seven months to go until the Nov. 4 elections, Rauner already is using
financial resources to try to create the concept of Gov. Pat Quinn as an
incumbent liar.
The
only difference between the primary and now is that Quinn has his own ample
funding to spew Rauner with months of dirt during the upcoming months.
ANYBODY
WHO THINKS that the Supreme Court’s ruling will somehow give us more enlightened
campaign rhetoric is seriously misguided.
For
we in Illinois have seen how our governor’s campaign has devolved into the
election between “Quinnochio” and “Mr. Burns.” Do we really need that,
nationwide?
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment