View Story | 13 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
but we do it all the time, regretfully perhaps, but the courts do it. Even the suggestion that we "police that corruption" could be interpreted as such. But Clean Elections and similar initiatives are not mandatory; they're optional avenues, so candidates who want to pursue the usual path are free to accept corporate dollars. Nowhere did I say every candidate must run using public financing. I don't support that for the reasons you state. But for those who want to stump for thousands of $5 contributions from regular Joes, it provides a means to exercise speech.
"One cannot be pessimistic about the West. This is the native land of hope." Wallace Stegner
by Mother Mags on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:59:10 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
...I suppose that is one way of looking at it then. I'll still oppose it, since I can think of a host of other issues related to the public financing of elections (not least that it would compel all Americans to support political speech, and since I consider not voting or supporting the political process to be a valid political choice and this would infringe on that right) but I was seeing it in more of a McCain-Feingold manner. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken
by Jay Elias on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:22:08 PM PDT
but you are right: there are still lots of questions. As long as it encourages more participation in the political process - rather than restrict speech - that's a good thing. What gripes me, I guess, are the corporations who hijack the Bill of Rights argument, which is a legitimate debate, when it comes from people who genuinely care about the amendments.
by Mother Mags on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:34:13 PM PDT
...are the politicians who take that cash and then are willing to use that money to get themselves into a position where they can "pay it back" on the backs of American citizens. And I can't believe that not only do they do it, but their parties nominate them to do it again and again and people vote to allow them to continue to do it again and again.
How hard is it for Democrats to get rid of a single corrupt and inept Senator from Conneticut? How hard is it for anyone to get rid of any incumbent in any way? There are checks built into the system already, and it drives me crazy that we've allowed them to become so disused.
by Jay Elias on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:38:18 PM PDT
so incumbents don't really have much of an opportunity to "pay it back" for very long. But I'm no fan of that system, hoping that citizens will toss out the bad seeds the best way - with their votes. But, as you note, that doesn't work, mostly because of the incumbent's advantage in raising cash, which public financing tries to address. A circular deal with the devil, I guess.
by Mother Mags on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:56:00 PM PDT
...but the districting is outrageous. I don't think much of Gov. Ahnuld, but he at least had an idea of a better way for it to be done, and both parties fought tooth and nail against it. So of course, California will remain gerrymandered, like every state with enough population to have more than a couple of representatives.
My district includes about ten blocks of my neighborhood in the East Village, along with large, noncontigous blocks of Brooklyn and Queens. And while I like my representative, she's unapposed this election. Nothing says Democracy like rigging it so the people don't actually have a choice, huh?
by Jay Elias on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:59:36 PM PDT
doesn't often have a friggin' chance of having real representation, since many outlying districts go into the more populated, pro-growth urban areas - where the votes and money are. My district includes the most urban, high-dense (for the Southwest) city, along with very rural small towns and Native reservations. And these smaller, once very desireable places, are changing a lot - not all of it good.
by Mother Mags on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:17:23 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 13 comments