Apparently at YearlyKos (I have to go to one of those sometime, probably next year) there was a difference of opinion between Edwards, Obama, and Clinton on the impact of lobbyists contributing to presidential campaigns. I’m not really sure where I stand on the issue – I’m totally squishy on campaign finance issues – but what I do know is that nobody really cares. Oh, a couple people get really excited over raising or extending campaign contribution limits and there are some who can rhapsodize about “clean elections”, but for the vast vast vast majority of people it’s a big yawner. In many ways there are few things more inside baseball than campaign finance. It’s all about elections, not governing. Of course you wouldn’t want mafioso wheeling up big piles of cash to the oval office, but whether a lobbyist should be a donor or not? Bo-ring.
My view: what, are we gonna screen out campaign donations by employees now? First lobbyists, then hedge fund managers, then what? Only NFL players are allowed to donate, but not NBA or MLB ones? Gimme a break.
The Attorney General scandal is pretty boring to the American public, too, but it doesn’t make it any less important.
I’m sorry you can’t stay awake, but it would be really wonderful if we could once again find ourselves participating in a representative government.
Crazy, I know.
There is a simple solution to campaign financing.
Only voters should be permitted to contribute to a candidate, and only to a candidate that they get to vote for.
Limit contributions to $100.
Problem solved. Next?
BTW Oliver, I saw that sweet shoutout from Markos at YearlyKos. Congrats.
“Only voters should be permitted to contribute to a candidate, and only to a candidate that they get to vote for.”
I was going to come in here and say essentially the same thing. Organizations, and that include unions and corporations should be barred from contributing anything to campaigns.
It’s time our government started representing CITIZENS again instead of groups.
I disagree about the limits though. While on the one hand I’d oppose the rich having a greater influence than the poor, I think that would likely just have to be a consequence of a system based around liberty for the citizen.
Whaddayamean no one cares!? YOU YOURSELF had a picture of Jack Abramoff as your personal avatar picture thingie for quite some time, Oliver!
As far as the ‘who gets to contribute,’ it’s reasonable to say that only voters get to contribute, but there’s something in the way here: A Supreme Court ruling which says that financial contributions by corporations to election campaigns is protected free speech. You tell me how that makes sense, because it doesn’t, but it’s something that was handed to you by your forefathers.
The real issue with campaign finance goes back to the issue of ‘corporate personhood,’ which is REAL inside baseball. The framers set up the Constitution to protect the citizenry *from* corporate interests, but meanwhile, through legislation and court rulings, the government has given corporations greater and greater standing as ‘people.’ That is, they get human rights protections in many different ways that make no sense whatsoever unless you’re a lawyer trying to defend your company against lawsuits.
The campaign-contribution-as-protected speech ruling is the icing on that particular cake, and is only a symptom of a larger society-wide (and in fact global) problem.
Why are you lame Oliver Willis?
I’m sorry that these sorts of things bore you, but regardless, they are very important.
The fact that something is boring is not a reason to ignore it. Symptoms of problems are often more emotional than root causes. But it’s the root cause where change can be made. In fact, the focus on more emotional symptoms to the exclusion of the boring leverage points is part of why we’re in the mess we’re in.
“The framers set up the Constitution to protect the citizenry *from* corporate interests, but meanwhile, through legislation and court rulings, the government has given corporations greater and greater standing as ‘people.’”
Personhood for corporations actually started as a clerical error that has led down a dark road toward corporate empowerment. Another was the SCOTUS ruling that allowed corporations to own other corporations. Both of these precedents we now take wholly for granted, but they were not always so.
Another was the trend that began in the 1940’s and was LITERALLY based off Nazi propaganda, re-coined “public relations,” that ushered in the era of turning citizens into consumers.
The framers set up the Constitution to protect us from corporations? That’s just sick.
Corporation is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Government, however, is subject to dozens of limitations and lines they may not cross.
Did you actually read the document?