"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin
Well, maybe.
I'm as liberal, progressive, socialist, leftist, pinko, commie as they come.
However, I'm saying that we need to give up some freedoms to protect our basic freedoms. I know, I know, you've never read anything so Orwellian in your life.
Let me try to explain.
When the wealthiest people are the only people who can afford to run for important national office, you get a bunch of bored people in leadership positions. What could people who have everything possibly want?
More. Yep, that's the only thing that they could possibly want. More power, even more money.
Sure, they can be giving and philanthropic at times. Sometimes they share their excess more with their wealthy friends. It gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. As Bush once implied, not only will the "haves" be helped, but the "have mores" won't be left out.
But, as long as wealthy people are the only people who can afford to run for office, the "barely haves" and the "have nots" will continue to be left out.
So, unfortunately, here are some freedoms that need to be surrendered.
Corporations have to surrender their personhood. After all, if you look at them, you can clearly see that they're not people. I mean, where are the ears, the eyes, the heart? They're definitely missing a heart.
Consequently, stopping them from "contributing" millions of dollars to their favorite political candidates will no longer be a violation of their first amendment rights because they'll no longer have first amendment rights.
People have to surrender their right to announce their candidacy any sooner than six months before an election.
If someone does so or, underhandedly, lets his or her intention "leak out" any sooner than six months before an election, that person will just have to wait for the next election to run for office.
The Electoral College electors will have to surrender their rights to jockey the real numbers around when they report them to Congress because there won't be any Electoral College.
Candidates have to surrender their right to spend an obscene amount of money to support their candidacies.
Michael Bonanno is a published poet, essayist and musician who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. Some of his poetry can be found at The Poetry Corner at OpEdNews.He is an associate editor for OpEdNews.
Bonanno is a political progressive, not a Democratic Party apologist. He believes it's government's job to help the needy and that leaving the people's well being to the so called "private sector" is social suicide.His CDs may be purchased at CD Baby.
Unfortunatly, I've been trying to put out the same message for the last two years. Most people here don't care about the corporations running our government. They think that the Democrats will save them...your wasting your time trying to tell people that they have no voice in government. Sorry.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 575 comments)
on Sunday, November 19, 2006 at 8:53:55 AM
you are being drummmed out of the leftist club! ;-]
I am in full agreement with those changes you call surrendering rights, though understand fully that we all actually become more free as a result of the changes wrought. The problem , as I se it, is that we are asking those who benefit most from the status quo to make those changes....an unlikely occurrence to be certain.
Why, I wonder, can we not understand that the elction process is the very bedrock of a free society and encumbering that process with the need to spend tens of millions, and then to immediately begin to reacquire that money after a successful campaign in order to win again in two, four,or six years leads to what we now have, a democracy of the corporation and not so much for us.
"What we have in this country is socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor."
Gore Vidal
The real question we should all be asking ourselves is how can we expect the club members to disband the exclusivity of the club? Anyone, anyone, Bueller?........
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, November 19, 2006 at 10:06:35 AM
Just two points - it's not just corporations, it's all organized special interests - be they corporations, unions (lets be fair here, unions do not represent all of their members, but rather spend their money on their agenda, and for the minority of members who disagree - tough luck), or any other groups, pro-life, but also pro-choice, pro-biz, pro-environment. Only individual donations with a spending limit.
Next, the 6 month candidacy only makes matters worse. Between political gerrymandaring, and a 6 month candidacy, do you really think we'd ever have incumbents actually lose elections?
by
Art Feierman (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 3:32:31 AM
While , as a member of a national union, I have certain familiarity with the facts that , often, the interests of the union doesnt coincide with the interests of the worker, I would question what it is you refer to as "their agenda"........
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 7:17:24 AM
