 |
|
Add to My Group
|
October 14, 2007 at 08:51:05
Why Isn't Campaign Finance THE Major Issue In 2008 Election? by Kevin Sysyn Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
Virtually every controversy, from haircuts to millions of dollars, facing the candidates and campaigns concern campaign finance and those involved in it. "The money" questions follow them everywhere, through the campaign and beyond.
In fact how much money the candidates raise is more the barometer of their success, far more covered and scrutinized by the media, than what they say on the issues and how they stand with the public.
Most reasonable people recognize that the current bribery funding system awards influence and power to the elite-corporate-wealthy waaaay out of proportion to their 5% numbers...which is far out of line with the basic tenants and philosophy of Democracy and "one man/one vote".; definitely a broken and flawed system.
Corporations can't vote, and aren't even mentioned in the US Constitution, while elite classes of people are prohibited therein. What are they doing involved in the political process at all for heaven's sake, much less dictating and controlling it!?
You would think that drastic reform of campaign financing, which causes nothing but endless time-consuming troubles, distractions and headaches for the politician/candidates, would be high on their list of priorities. But it's not. Why not?
Only an idiot would contend that "Giving the power back to the people" is a bad idea? It would seem an honorable enough issue for some candidate to take a chance on; especially one who lags in fund-raising. But nobody does..ever. Why not?
Why isn't the state of campaign financing in America, and over-hauling it, the major campaign issue of 2008?
To solve that mystery, as one wise and famous anonymous-source put it, "follow the money". So let's.
Like the United Nations Food-For-Oil bribery case, the sources of the campaign bribery money, the true corruptors of America's democracy, remain mostly anonymous, insulated by layers of double-dealing shenanigans in the shady, secretive back-room business of organized criminal political power-brokering.
For example, though Abramhoff, Washington's #1 criminal briber, and many of his GOP criminal bribe-clients were found out, we will probably never know where he got the money and who he was really working for. It would be virtually impossible to snag them anyway in the gray maze of legality so convoluted that even campaign lawyers and Election Commissions can't understand it.
With national PACS, state laws, state PACS, federal laws, national party committees, state committees, teams of lawyers, expenditures blah blah....it is purposely made too complicated to finger anyone but the most egregious and obvious violators, who become, like Abramhoff and GOP Congressman Ney, sacrificial lambs on the alter of political corruption.
Rest assured that in the final analysis not much of the hundred$ of million$ of dollars that somehow finds it's way into campaign "war chests" is coming from average Dick & Jane working voter/citizens. That much we know for certain.
The source of dirty money is a colossal confusing mess that could easily be swept up by prohibiting by law of all forms of aid and contribution to politicians and campaigns, in and outside of the backrooms and boardrooms of Washington DC, state capitols and government departments etc. including abolishing lobbying in all of its forms, no matter how innocent or "public-spirited" it may appear to be. There's no "free lunch"....so there shouldn't be any "free lunch". Period!
Of course next in this money "food chain" are the candidates themselves and their campaigns. But boy are the hounds ever on them! In fact they and their campaigns can hardly buy a "hotdog and a Coke" without somebody wagging a finger, and a tongue, at them. And they are reduced to being little more than temporary custodians of other people's money.
America's leaders are just hapless middlemen.
Only the survivor, the one who gets elected, is of value to anyone. And although we are never sure what that "value" is we get little hints like Junior George Bush unabashedly praising the "have-mores" as his true base and giving them a trillion dollar tax gift within days of his inauguration.
Following the money to the end-game recipients, where the campaign bribery dollars are ultimately spent, however explains a lot, and it's easy as hell to do. Because we know all about them and see them every day. They are literally right in front of us....on TV.
The final recipients are the profiteering mainstream corporate media.
All of the campaigns, regardless of their 'war chest", spend 90% of their campaign bribe-money on broadcast media advertising, and most, win or lose, wind up in debt to the monster media, which of course includes the major and minor networks, newspapers, and nowadays, internet entities. All of the entities of this for-profit media juggernaut...the talking heads, spin-doctors, experts, pundits, liberals, conservatives, neutrals, lying and honest... feed from this aggregate elite-wealthy campaign-finance-bribery trough.
And don't think for a minute that Tim Russert and Rupert Murdoch don't know who's buttering their bread, which may explain why the GOP, the "have-more" party, has long enjoyed favoritism and deference from the for-hire mainstream media....They're part of the family. It explains why Bill O-Reilly, a lying GOP shill and poor excuse for a human being, has a major network TV and radio show, while MediaMatters for America, an honest people's media-watchdog, remains delegated to the internet.
That's why the media never want to touch the issue of campaign finance. They're the guilty party, not the politicians.
For example even when they're questioning the candidates, no matter their political party, about their finances they never ask questions like:
What do you think the elite wealthy corporate fund-raisers and donors of yours expect in return for their generosity and financial support if you are elected?
When, in the political debates and candidate forums, turds like Tim Russert raise the issue of questionable campaign funds, $1000 haircuts...etc... I'd like to hear at least one candidate say:
"You know Tim the question you just asked brings to light why campaign financing itself should be the major issue in the up-coming election, that should engage all the candidates, media and Americans.
My $1000 haircut.... like the one you have.... is so I look good on TV... like you do. The rest of my campaign money, good bad and ugly, goes to pay yours and other networks and advertising media for allowing me to appear.....and that includes your salary, benefits and status as a celebrity journalist Tim.
So I would like to pledge here and now..... and I invite all the candidates of both parties, every media journalist and pundit including you Tim, to join me...... that if I am elected I will propose complete public financing of all political election campaigns.... and to outlaw lobbying and all other forms of "influence", quote unquote on candidates and campaigns and the democratic political process.
I will introduce legislation requiring that all media and news networks provide free air-time and advertising to all political campaigns,
as their patriotic duty and as tribute to this great country of America,
the land of freedom and opportunity,
the country for which so many American have fought and died to make possible their prosperity and success,
for their paying customers, subscribers and viewers,
otherwise known as the American people,
to provide them with a free Democracy
unfettered by dirty money, corruption, deceit and influence-peddling.
Will you join me Tim?
And I pledge that the current corrupt system of campaign finance bribery by the elite wealthy, of enriching the brigand capitalist corporate media .... and paying for your $1000 haircut Tim....shall be abolished....
....and I pledge "that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this Earth".
Koolmuse
anonymousource.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 6 comments |
|
You have it wrong
Kevin has put the cart before the horse. by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 14, 2007 at 11:43:21 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: I don't have it wrong
"The people" should, through their uncorrupted government, benefit from the nation's tax dollars. That is exactly what government is about. "Bridges to nowhere" is precisely the problem. They only benefit the corporate contractors who get the job which is ill-created by the politician they bribed who holds the purse-strings. In the real world, not the one we dream about, the American government has become a corporate subsidiary.....and rather cheap one I might add...at a few hundred million per cycle. And its through "legal" contributions. "A bridge to somewhere" is a great thing for everybody. What the current GOP corporate government is doing is building a trillion dollars worth of bridges to nowhere in Iraq for chrissake! The wealthy are far...very far...father then ever before...from being the majority in the country. The Constitutional right of the Congress to spend money was not the point of my essay. by Kevin Sysyn (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Sunday, Oct 14, 2007 at 5:59:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: But you missed the point once again.
All the citizens have to do is vote only for politicians who promise to follow the constitution. If they do not, they get voted out of office. That would include all but one member of the present congress. De don't need more laws for goodness sake, we only need to follow the supreme law of the land. Are you guilty of voting for elected officials who have not been true to their oath of office? Have you voted for a senator or member of congress who has violated the constitution? If so, then you are the guilty party. If so, then shame on you. The good news is that you have the power to change. by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 15, 2007 at 2:39:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I didn't miss the point.
Maybe I don't get your point and you didn't get mine. Perhaps you should write an eassay on the illegality of Congressional spending. As I read it, the US Constitution clearly empowers the Congress to collect taxes and to spend the money to "promote the general welfare" with quite a list of specific responsibilites which require money In fact the President is given no such Constitutional power of the purse but is rather ordered in the Constitution to apply Congress' policy, fiscal and otherwise. For example Bush has to beg Congress every three months for money to finance his war, he made to order for the profiteering arms manufaturers and oil companies who sponsored his candidacy. As long as campaign financing dictates only candidates, such as Bush, tending toward such unconstitutional illegal usurping of power, and illegal theft and indebting the nation for the benefit of the wealthy few, who financed his campaigns, there is no end in sight to the subversion of America's democracy. Look for example at the present lot of Presidential candidates. In spite of ovr-whelming public opinion, the leading Democrats and the leading Republicans all pledge to continue the Iraq War. The Dems tend toward the psuedo-liberal "its the only reasonable way to get out" and the GOPs tend toward the macho "its a winner-take-all fight to the death". But the basic proposed policy is the same. Stay in Iraq and blow the country's money and blood while the stock market soars. Do you think its just a coincidence that all such pro-war candidates, both parties, are by far the best "financed" and advertised as viable, while those who favor the citizens' view lag far behind in positive media exposure and "fund-raising"? I don't think so. by Kevin Sysyn (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Monday, Oct 15, 2007 at 5:22:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Got it in one !
I like what you say. Well thought out argument.You’re right in saying you’ve got it the right way round too. Tragically, both you and I are fighting a losing battle on this one. It is very doubtful if not unrealistic for any congress of already ‘corrupted’ men to give up what many will see as an advantage. A wise man once said “every person has their price …” for some it’s a curvy blond, others it’s measured in millions $, others it’s a seat in congress and for some very ambitious (megalomaniacal, egotists?) it’s president. By the time they’ve curried favour to be a candidate they have already compromised looks like public interest first with a view of “I need business support first to win power”. To then do fund raising there are more compromises and their view is now well “I have to make these concessions to these business interests because they’re so powerful”. Then finally it’s well lets see what I can do without upsetting business and people who supported me. Businesses especially the media would cry restriction of trade when what they mean is that they would lose their leverage in government for their own nectareous purposes.It seems to me the first kink in the system is that candidates need to raise such outrageously large sums of money and for what? Something as transitory as a misleading ad (usually negative). Just think what all that money would do for the poor and underpriveledged in America let alone overseas? Imagine in my fantasy world · The political ads would be limited · Paid for by the state . each party is given a budget . Reimbursment will be in line with the number of votes they each recieve up to their budget.Excess will be fined. The fines will be distributed to the lesser partiesfor development. That would discourage richer parties · ad has to come in twos one Dem one GOP, Greens Independent etc · Alternating in order · Voting would be universally mandatory · Voting administered by Federal dept controlled rigorously by congress alone (joint sitting) · All ads Written and other wise during the 6 week period of election can only be from within the budget set by the department. · Other sourced political ads are explicitly banned. The last two conditions would act to change the emphasis from personality to ISSUE base election there now wouldn’t that be nice Failing that you and I could be appointed as joint benign dictators ….trust me by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Monday, Oct 15, 2007 at 1:57:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Amend the US Constitution to get reform
It is likely that the only way to get representative government back is to organize like the civil rights movement. This is the only time our government makes any attempt to represent the people. They are afraid of a rebellion like the American Revolution. If you want Congress to Represent YOU instead of Special Interests, Vote YES for the Citizen Amendments. Also Checkout the National Initiative for Democracy and then vote on it. It will give the people the right to a National Initiative. by Anton Grambihler (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 314 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 15, 2007 at 2:03:06 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
