|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?