Quote:
Originally Posted by erps
High School kids have to pass a test to graduate. We ought to have candidates take some sort of a test battery that shows whether they're smart, ethical and their political philosophy. Post the results and vote the one you think has the best scores to run the country. Some how limit the amount of money it takes to campaign so these guys don't have to sell their soul.
|
In conclusion erps makes a plea for the system we have now and the actual corruption of the political process. Chuckles goes along with him down the sane familiar dead-end road in the very next post.
Money is freedom of speech in action. That is a statement of fact.
Freedom of speech, constitutionally speaking, is primarily an issue of political speech. If you do not have freedom of political speech any other free speech rights you do possess mean little or nothing. That is because, by very definition, politics and therefore political speech is about those very things which are important to you. If you doubt this, make a list of the five most important things in your life and then examine how government affects each one. If you're thorough in your examination you'll see in the end that government has a dramatic effect on your life and the things you hold most dear. Regardless of whether you regard yourself as a political animal or not, you are one. That you choose not to vote or not to inform yourself on the issues of the day merely means that you are delegating your political power to your neighbor. It does not change the fact that you and politics are inextricably linked. If you're reading this the chances are good that you're not content to be just a passenger on the political train and you'd like to have some say in which direction the train is going to run.
Back to free speech. You have a strong political opinion on an issue. You express it verbally to your friends and family but you are of the view that it such an important issue that you'd like to tell more people. So you take the day off of work and go down to the town square and start talking to everyone who passes by. (btw, you've just made your first acquaintance with the intersection of politics and money-you sacrificed earnings for speech.) After a day in the sun, you come to two conclusions; you did not reach nearly the number of people that you'd hoped for and, with the money you'd have made working, you could have taken out a small ad in the newspaper.
You get thinking about that ad and you realise that, with a little help from some like minded friends, you could take out a full page ad and attract much more attention. You also consider that you and your friends could get the same attention by going down to the court house waving signs and maybe burning a flag or two. But you feel you've got an important and valid issue and you don't want to alienate the rational thinkers you're trying to reach with your opinion by acting like a showboat. Your ad attracts a lot of attention.
One of the people your ad is read by becomes very enthused about your issue and you notice that he is able to articulate that issue very well. About the same time you realise that the best way to accomplish your political goal is to have like-minded individuals in the government. You decide to try to get your friend elected to political office. You soon see how politics, which is free speech in action, and money are inextricably linked. Nobody is going to vote for your buddy if they have not heard his message or met him. It takes money to get the message out and more money to be able to transport your new candidate around. Money is free speech.
But, isn't there too much money in politics? No, there is not nearly enough money in politics. We spend more money advertising the baseball game of the week than we do on political matters. Contrast the amount of money Gillette spends selling razor blades with how much we spend on political advertising. And which is more important; your decision to buy a blade with two cutters or three versus the candidate who may send your son to war?
The folly of the unconstitutional, in my opinion, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law is that it took money out of the hands of accountable political parties and put it in the hands of totally unaccountable 527 groups. and it has done nothing to limit campaign spending, as if that were a worthy goal. The only type of campaign finance reform the country needed, or needs, is merely one of full disclosure as to whom is making the contributions and in what amounts.
With full disclosure, you're not left to wonder whom the candidate is in bed with-you can read it right on the disclosure form. Artificially limiting contributions means that, aside from limiting one or another person's free speech rights, you are forcing the money to go underground only to appear later is the hands of some questionable characters and organizations.
Every time you think that there's too much being spent-think about how much you'd be willing to spend so you didn't have to stand out in the rain on that soapbox trying to get your message out.
Linear Mode
