Thursday, February 11, 2010
Hippocracy
I am really ticked at the dems right now about one issue, the recent Supreme Court decision to allow groups (business, unions, ngo's, etc) to spend as much as they want on political commercials. The dems are screaming that this was a bad decision and that it gives unfair advantage to big business (whenever the word "big" comes out, look out - big oil, big wall street firms, big energy, big business, etc). Now they want it all turned over and want a law to fix this poor decision. Now, I would be fully in support of these "gentlemen" and their cause if they would be willing to put the kabash on lobbiests. My guess is that lobbiers have more influence on Congress (probably less on elections) and hurt the American citizens more than any political advertisement by any group - big business included. No more lobbying. That hurts all of us and makes our elected officials beholden to some special interest. Adverts, well, most folks see through them. In this case, I think the big 9 got it right, no one should be able to restrain any group from voicing their opinions in a legitimate way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I hear you on this one. I cannot believe the SCOTUS gave corporations such a gift, what a terrible decision. I'd like to see that decision overturned and revisited, and I'd like to see the lobbying gone too. After all, the lobbyists practically own the senators, even at the state level. South Carolina is going into major debt just to get Boeing. The residents shouldn't be paying for this crap, but the lobbyists convinced the South Carolina senate.
Long term, we ought to have term-limits for senators as well. They have more power than the president in some aspects, and if the president is limited to eight years, the senators ought to be limited to ten years. If we did that, we wouldn't be stuck with wonks like Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, the former Strom Thurmond, and all of those career senators.
It seems obvious to me that this is unjust and immoral and the only way that this could be explained is that either the constitution is an UTTER sham (which I don't believe) or our courts have fallen into such decadence that they can't make out the difference between corporations and people.
The whole point centers on access and venues for getting the truth (or whatever lie you are passing for the truth) before people who can judge one way or the other. As it is, we have neither the venues nor the people who could judge this matter. I am afraid it is a lot more hopeless, in the current state of things, than either of you think.
Post a Comment