Page
to spout off with his incite-ful opinions.
Themselves?
Now that the Democrats have taken over Congress we’re hearing a lot of lofty
talk about how they’re going to pass reforms to prevent future abuses like the
Abramoff scandals. The thing is, they have no room to talk, they’ve had
they're own fair share of scandal throughout recent history. The last major
round of “reform talk” came when the Republicans took control of Congress oh
so long ago, but it never amounted to much because they wanted to be able to
get away with the same things the Democrats did when they were in charge.
I don’t believe it was the founder’s intention, but throughout our country’s
history money has had a strong influence over politics. After all, we are a
capitalist society. Instead of one person-one vote it’s more like one dollar-one
vote. That’s the problem that their reforms should be correcting. Our
government’s job is supposed to be to represent the best interests of our
nation as a whole, not what’s best for the moneyed interests and a few vocal
organizations.
Corrupt politicians have always been sort of a national inside joke that was
funny because it was true. It was fairly recently that Congress finally put a stop
to obviously questionable practices that earned them lots of perks paid for by
taxpayers and lobbyists, only because they faced a strained economy and
irate voters.
But in this country we should end once and for all the notion that our federal
lawmakers are for sale. For one thing, large campaign contributors should not
get special consideration from our representatives. On the other hand, one
could argue that providing financial support to a candidate that you agree with
is a form of speech that should be protected by the First Amendment. If flag-
burning is a form of speech, giving money to a politician surely is also. So
even the campaign contribution limits that are already in place could be
unconstitutional.
So, my answer is that anybody should be able to contribute as much as they
want to the candidate of their choice--anonymously. All contributions would be
funneled through an organization set up by the political parties and distributed
to the appropriate candidates. By law, the candidates would not be allowed to
know who gave them the money. After all, the contributors are donating the
money to support a candidate they believe in, not because they expect
something in return, so there’s really no reason that the candidate needs to
know who his donors are. Telling a candidate that you donated money to his
campaign would be a crime similar to offering a bribe. Candidates would still
be allowed to send out letters requesting donations, but asking for a specific
amount would be a crime similar to asking for a bribe.
My point is, we need to stop the practices that lead to a government where
corporations are writing the legislation that regulates (or doesn’t regulate)
them. I believe it was a Queen of England who once said, “We should not only
avoid impropriety, but even the appearance of impropriety.” The people of our
great nation deserve no less.
Page